MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947971559 · doi:10.3390/min9060334

Spodumene: The Lithium Market, Resources and Processes

2019· article· en· W2947971559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsNemaska Lithium (Canada)Université de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpodumeneLithium (medication)Extraction (chemistry)Materials scienceChemistryMetallurgyCeramicOrganic chemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This literature review gives an overview of the lithium industry, including the lithium market, global resources, and processes of lithium compounds production. It focuses on the production of lithium compounds from spodumene minerals. Spodumene is one of the most critical minerals nowadays, due to its high lithium content and high rate of extraction. Lithium is one of the most sought-after metals, due to the ever-growing demand for lithium-ion batteries (LiBs). The data on lithium extraction from minerals is scattered through years of patents, journal articles, and proceedings; hence, requiring an in-depth review, including the comprehension of the spodumene phase system, the phase conversion processes, and the lithium extraction processes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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