The use of the Roben Jig for preparation of clean coal samples of Western Canadian coals via density separation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared a water-based and a solvent-based method for removing ash (washing) from coal: jigging coal in water using the Roben Jig and the float/sink method using conventional organic liquids (naphtha, perchloroethylene, methylene bromide), respectively. Clean coal curves from the two processes were compared for six coal types from British Columbia, Canada. The clean coal curve for the Roben Jig deviated from that of the organic liquids when the near-density material content was high. Also, particles were misplaced within the jigging column; however, a simple “rejig” process was capable of further cleaning the coal. The Roben Jig was used to create a clean coal sample of at least 400 kg by washing coal in batches. The clean coal curves for the jig were similar. Minor differences could be attributed to the occurrence of misplaced particles. Although the Roben Jig does not provide perfect separation of coal based on density for use in wash plant design studies, previous work has established that it is capable of creating representative clean coal composites without the use of organic liquids.
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.
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 it