MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386995335 · doi:10.3390/gels9100775

Polymeric Materials for Rare Earth Elements Recovery

2023· review· en· W4386995335 on OpenAlexafffund
Hongtao Zhang, Yongfeng Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueGels · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersQinghai Normal UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRare earthHazardous wasteScalabilityNanotechnologyRenewable energySustainabilityMaterials scienceBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rare earth elements (REEs) play indispensable roles in various advanced technologies, from electronics to renewable energy. However, the heavy global REEs supply and the environmental impact of traditional mining practices have spurred the search for sustainable REEs recovery methods. Polymeric materials have emerged as promising candidates due to their selective adsorption capabilities, versatility, scalability, and regenerability. This paper provides an extensive overview of polymeric materials for REEs recovery, including polymeric resins, polymer membranes, cross-linked polymer networks, and nanocomposite polymers. Each category is examined for its advantages, challenges, and notable developments. Furthermore, we highlight the potential of polymeric materials to contribute to eco-friendly and efficient REEs recovery, while acknowledging the need to address challenges such as selectivity, stability, and scalability. The research in this field actively seeks innovative solutions to reduce reliance on hazardous chemicals and minimize waste generation. As the demand for REEs continues to rise, the development of sustainable REEs recovery technologies remains a critical area of investigation, with the collaboration between researchers and industry experts driving progress in this evolving field.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations35
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGelsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207