MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883245912 · doi:10.15273/ijge.2018.03.015

The Potentials of Scientific and Industrial Collaborations in the Field of REE through China’s Belt and Road Initiative

2018· article· en· W2883245912 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
George Barakos, Helmut Mischo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Georesources and Environment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaContext (archaeology)Work (physics)SkepticismBusinessEuropean unionSupply chainSustainable developmentPolitical scienceInternational tradeEngineeringMarketingGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the framework of trade deals and infrastructure investments, China also wants to build a "belt of scientific cooperation" with countries and international organisations involved in the Belt and Road Initiative. This could create an opportunity for involvement of several European countries that have so far treated China’s initiative with skepticism about the coherence and practicality of the project. A crucial issue that concerns both China and the European Union in the recent years is the establishment of an undisrupted supply of critical raw materials to satisfy the consumption demands of the modern high-tech world that we live in. Among the listed critical raw materials are the rare earth elements (REE). Accordingly, the development of an extended and sustainable REE supply chain is a significant research field in which both sides could collaborate and benefit from. It is crucial for the involved countries to utilise their advantages, work together and share knowledge to tackle technical, economic and environmental issues that govern the global rare earth industry. Hence, in this paper the possibilities of a potential cooperation are investigated in the context of collaborative research projects, academic networking, workshops and training for young scientists. The aim is to seek, find and bridge any gaps that exist between the two sides with a view to strong academic and industrial collaborations.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Georesources and EnvironmentSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207