MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112621644 · doi:10.3390/min10121133

Transition of Sulphide Self-Heating from Stage A to Stage B

2020· article· en· W3112621644 on OpenAlexaff
Sung-Jae Moon, Frank Rosenblum, Yuehua Tan, Kristian E. Waters, J.A. Finch

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicThermal and Kinetic Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdiabatic processMonoclinic crystal systemSulfurStage (stratigraphy)Work (physics)Transition (genetics)Materials scienceTransformation (genetics)ThermodynamicsChemistryCrystallographyMetallurgyPhysicsGeologyCrystal structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous work has shown that sulphide self-heating occurs in three distinct stages, referred to as Stage A, Stage B and Stage C. In this publication, the focus is the transition from Stage A to Stage B which occurs at ca. 100 °C. Background literature hints that the transition corresponds to the transformation of the rhombic form of elemental sulphur to the more reactive monoclinic form that occurs at 96 °C. A test apparatus is modified for adiabatic heating to track the transition. The results support this transformation of sulphur as being key to the transition, and the transition temperature is thus modified to 96 °C. Variations in a sample’s response under adiabatic conditions are observed and possible reasons are discussed. Testing in adiabatic mode provides new insights into the sulphide self-heating process that complements the test designed to identify propensity to self-heat.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicThermal and Kinetic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207