MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394578023 · doi:10.11647/obp.0373.13

A Closer Relationship with Our Metals

2024· book-chapter· en· W4394578023 on OpenAlexaff
W. Scott Dunbar, Jocelyn Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence and availability of metals is taken for granted by most people. However, these perceptions will be challenged as global metal demand increases due to economic development, and supplies are threatened by dwindling geological reserves and shifting geopolitics. Alternative sources and methods of supply must be developed if we are to meet anticipated needs for metals, including those required for the transition to renewable energy systems. The ideal goal is a circular economy, where recycling and reuse of metal-containing products keep these resources available to the economy as long as possible. At the same time, innovation within the existing global metal supply system can provide new access to metal sources and opportunities for improved recovery of metals along the supply chain. The key is to open new points of entry into the metal supply system, identify and remove barriers, introduce necessary technologies, and organize more efficient business models. This includes the targeting of smaller-scale deposits and the more efficient recovery of metals from waste material at various points along the supply chain. If society were more engaged in such developments, metals could be more efficiently supplied with significant economic benefits to a larger number of individuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.055

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Book PublishersSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207