MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103987470 · doi:10.1016/j.gexplo.2020.106699

Recovery potential of rare earth elements from mining and industrial residues: A review and cases studies

2020· review· en· W3103987470 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie Costis, Kristin K. Mueller, Lucie Coudert, Carmen Mihaela Neculita, Nicolas Reynier, Jean‐François Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geochemical Exploration · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueNatural Resources CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhosphogypsumRare earthAcid mine drainageEnvironmental scienceWaste managementNatural resource economicsBusinessEarth scienceEngineeringGeologyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations183
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geochemical ExplorationSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207