Sinterability of macrocrystalline and cryptocrystalline magnesite to refractory magnesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to present the results of an investigation aiming at obtaining high quality sintered magnesia from two well‐known Chinese magnesite. Two types of natural magnesite have been considered, one macrocrystalline, from Liaoning, with the grain size of 60‐100 µm and one cryptocrystalline, from Tibet, with 2‐4 µm grains. Calcining characteristics to transform the two magnesite to caustic magnesia have been studied at first. Subsequently, the calcining‐sintering characteristics using a two‐ and a three‐step process for both raw materials at different temperatures have been determined. A DTA–TGA study reveals that the minimum endothermic peak during the calcining step differs by 28°C (624 vs 652°C between the crypto‐ and macrocrystalline magnesite). It has also been observed that by using a two‐step sintering process, it is possible to obtain a magnesia with a bulk density of 3.26 and 3.14 g/cm3, respectively, for cryptocrystalline and macrocrystalline, while with a three‐step process, it is possible to reach a bulk density of 3.48 g/cm3, even at a temperature <1750°C.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".