MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926040647 · doi:10.3390/min9040204

Confirmation of Interlayer Sulfidization of Malachite by TOF-SIMS and Principal Component Analysis

2019· article· en· W2926040647 on OpenAlexaff
Jiushuai Deng, Hao Lai, Shuming Wen, Shimei Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersFok Ying Tung Education FoundationCentral South UniversityFok Ying Tong Education FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaKunming University of Science and TechnologyChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationState Key Laboratory of Mineral Processing Science and Technology
KeywordsMalachiteSecondary ion mass spectrometryChemistryIonAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mass spectrometryMineralogyChromatographyCopperOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a sulfidization mechanism of malachite was confirmed based on the depth profile product, principal component, and depth profile curve analyses of time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (TOF-SIMS). The results showed that Cu/S species, including fragment ion peaks of Cu2S+, Cu3S+, S−, HS−, S2−, CuS2−, and CuS3−, were present in the inner layers of sulfidized malachite in the positive and negative spectral ranges 75–400 and 30–470 m/z. Na2S reacted with the surface and inner atoms, causing simultaneous sulfidization of malachite on the surface and in the inner layers. The inner layer mainly contained positive fragment ions with large Cu/S ratios. In summary, the interlayer sulfidization phenomenon was confirmed and the differences in sulfidization products between the surface and inner layers were determined.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207