MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203702047 · doi:10.4236/jmmce.2021.95035

Morphology Study of Particle Breakage Mechanisms in a Horizontal Stirred Mill: Automated and Manual Point Counting Approaches

2021· article· en· W3203702047 on OpenAlexaff
Reem Roufail, Bern Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakageAgitatorGrindingMetallurgyMaterials scienceComminutionAbrasion (mechanical)Particle (ecology)Mineral processingGrindComposite materialMineralogyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-speed stirred mills are utilized to grind particles below 10mm. Grinding sulphide minerals to as low as 10mm achieve adequate mineral liberation for successful downstream mineral processing operations, such as flotation and leaching. Particle breakage mechanism such as fracture or abrasion, determines the morphological surface features of the product particles. It is anticipated that particles, which break along grain boundaries (intergranular) produce rough surfaces, whereas particles that break across the grain boundaries (transgranular) possess smoother surfaces. In this study, particles are ground in a stirred mill and their morphological features were analyzed using automated and manual detection methods. Literature and conventional belief are that high-speed stirred mills break particles by attrition. This paper showed that fracture is also an important breakage mechanism along with attrition. Breakage mechanism is a factor of input stress intensity, in the form of the mill agitator speed, and type of mineral. It is observed that at higher agitator speed galena fractures along the grain boundaries, whereas quartz, abrade across the grain boundaries.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and EngineeringSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207