MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2817292848

Mining Indaba '16: : We've yet to hit rock bottom, says Baker & McKenzie

2016· article· en· W2817292848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Industrial Minerals

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonnePotashnobodyAgricultural economicsConsumption (sociology)CommerceCommodityEconomicsSupply and demandEconomic shortageCompetitor analysisNatural resource economicsEconomyBusinessEngineeringMarket economyMicroeconomicsWaste managementManagementChemistryArtComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nobody wants to be the one who gives ground, as that may be letting their competitors in, one attendee at this year's Mining Indaba told IM. The problem is, this strategy means running a company into the ground before giving up, to a point where nobody will want to buy or revive it in the future. Since then, prices have not rebounded to more than $300/tonne. prices have not recovered to reach the $400/tonne mark (FOB Vancouver), [Smith] said. But at $240/tonne, believe that the market had bottomed out. Potash is an elastic commodity and consumption is sensitive to price. In general, for every $50/tonne increase in potash prices, we see demand decline by 1.1m tonnes. Overall, growth in potash demand is expected to be moderate compared to supply, Smith said. I expect consumption to reach 56.9m tonnes by 2020, leaving the market with an overall higher surplus than currently. In an oversupplied market, only those producers that have long-term supply agreements in place are expected to be successful, Smith said.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.012

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207