Characterisation of South African Chromite Middle Group Seams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, detailed physical and chemical characterisation of the South African chromite Middle group seams (MG 1, 2, 3 and 4) was conducted to determine the effect it has in choosing the type of milling equipment and establish how the mineralogical characteristics vary in order to decide whether they should be processed separately or blended together. The chemical composition was analysed using XRF, mineralogical phases determined using XRD and elemental analysis as well as grain particle sizes were obtained from SEM and EDS. XRF results showed that the Cr 2 O 3 content in all seams was between 30 and 35% by weight and mostly associated with Fe, Si, Mg, and Al elements. Most dominant phases are that of chromite and magnetite in all the samples. The amount of chromium element by % weight in all seams ranged between 20% to 28 % as obtained from the EDS. The particle size of the grains in the ore ranged between 20 to 420m, with majority being between 150 and 200m. SEM showed that minerals were well distributed within the ore, with very few that were clustered together. From above mentioned mineralogical analysis that has been conducted thus far it was observed that all Middle group seams showed very similar characteristics, and blending them for processing would be most recommended, however they can also be processed separately depending on the availability of the ore.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".