Complexity of Chalcopyrite Mineral Affecting Copper Recovery During Leaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regardless of the media/solvent used, chalcopyrite (CuFeS 2 ) is highly refractory and is considered to be one of the most difficult to leach. Its leaching is slow and incomplete owing to the diffusion barrier formed that prevents further attack of the leaching solution (solvent) on the unreacted CuFeS 2 mineral surface. The nature and composition of this barrier, together with the dissolution mechanism, remain controversial. There are three hypotheses for the structure of the formed diffusion barrier. The first hypothesis is that elemental sulfur (S o ), formed during leaching, prevents further diffusion of the reactant from reaching the un-leached chalcopyrite. The second hypothesis, commonly cited, ascribes the poor leaching to the formation of Cu-rich polysulfides, promoted by Fe preferential dissolution occurring through solid-state transformation (metal-deficient sulfide). The third hypothesis blames iron-precipitates including jarosite, jarosite-like species, and goethite. This book chapter aims to explore the various challenges related to the mineralogy of chalcopyrite that affect the recovery of copper during the leaching process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".