MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799433899

Potash and phosphate: : Year in Review 2015

2016· article· en· W2799433899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Industrial Minerals

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotashBusinessCash flowFinanceManagementEngineeringEconomic historyHistoryEconomicsPotassiumChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heading into 2014, the implications of the flooding of Uralkali OAO's Solikamsk II mine in Russia were among the chief supply concerns facing the potash industry. Solikamsk II represented a fifth of Uralkali's capacity, and, by the end of 2015, the company had not been able to recover the mine, having pulled equipment out of the site in February. Also making the headlines for negative reasons in 2015 was Sociedad Quimica y Minera (SQM). Its CEO, Patricio Contesse, was ousted following a number of revelations about the company's business dealings in 2014 and 2015. SQM's potash operations remain relatively stable, but ructions over the company's lithium and iodine businesses posed question marks over its medium-term cash flow. Possibly the biggest story of the year was the attempted takeover of Germany's K+S AG by Canada's Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. (PotashCorp). Delivered to K+S executives in June 2015, PotashCorp initially offered a EUR 41/share ($45.19/share*) deal. This was rejected by the German company's management in July. PotashCorp withdrew its bid in October after repeated attempts to woo the company, stating that market conditions for the purchase had deteriorated, despite saying only weeks before that the deal was even more attractive than when it was originally proposed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial MineralsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207