MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A LITERATURE STUDY OF BENEFITING K-BEARING SILICATE ROCKS AS RAW MATERIALS FOR POTASSIUM FERTILIZER

2013· article· en· W2787108327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Agus Wahyudi, Tatang Wahyudi

Bibliographic record

VenueIndonesian Mining Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilizerLeucitePotashPotassiumMineralSilicateLeaching (pedology)OrthoclaseSilicate mineralsMineralogyGeochemistryChemistryRaw materialFeldsparGeologyMaterials scienceMetallurgySoil waterCeramicSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an agricultural country Indonesia requires NPK fertilizer up to 2.6 million tons per year. However, such a number is mostly fulfilled by imports, particularly potassium (K) fertilizer. Almost a 100% of K-fertilizer comes from Canada and Russia in the form of KCl (sylvite) salt. Indonesia does not have sylvite mineral, but retains some K-bearing minerals such as K-feldspar and leucite. Both are different in characteristics from sylvite. K-feldspar and leucite are the alumino-silicate minerals. They require special treatment to process them into K-fertilizer. Several techniques can be applied to process both minerals, such as by mechano-chemistry, leaching, alkali fusion and bioleaching. Research on the utilization of K-source minerals as a raw material for K fertilizer is rela- tively rare. The opportunity to conduct such a research is widely open, as currently conducted by the Research and Development Centre for Mineral and Coal Technology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndonesian Mining JournalSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207