MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883983551

Mineral health check - what do Q1 results say about the state of the industry?

2016· article· en· W2883983551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Industrial Minerals

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicQuality and Safety in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotashQuarter (Canadian coin)Lithium (medication)EarningsIdleCompetition (biology)RentingNet incomeAgricultural economicsEarnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortizationBusinessMineralogyFinanceOperations managementPotassiumEngineeringEconomicsChemistryGeographyArchaeologyMetallurgyMaterials scienceCivil engineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The company saw lithium sales of $60.3m for the quarter, up from $56m in Q1 2015. Q1 earnings were $14.9m, up from $5.5m in 2015. Albemarle Corp., the Louisiana, US-based lithium major, meanwhile reported a y-o-y lithium sales increase of 19%. Its lithium business unit brought in net sales of $136.6m in Q1, up 19% from $114.7m in Q1 2015. Adjusted EBITDA** for the lithium business was up 26% y-o-y to $63.8m from $50.6m Meanwhile US-based Intrepid Potash Inc. said it would idle operations at its West potash mining facility in New Mexico after the company reported a loss of $18.4m in the first quarter of 2016, compared with net income of $6.5m in Q1 2015. The Carlsbad-based mine accounted for 42% of the company's MOP output last year, but a combination of decreasing potash prices, high outstanding inventories and foreign competition made the operation uneconomical.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.022

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 topicQuality and Safety in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207