MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407666778 · doi:10.1080/00084433.2025.2461418

A review of niobium resource smelting and extraction technology

2025· review· en· W4407666778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xue Bian, Peng Zhang, Yanping Li, Wenyuan Wu, Wenbo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Metallurgical Quarterly · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJoint Fund for Aerospace Advanced Manufacturing Technology ResearchNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsNiobiumSmeltingResource (disambiguation)Extraction (chemistry)MetallurgyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceChemistryComputer scienceChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Niobium (Nb) is a strategic metal. Except for Brazil and Canada, many other countries have abundant niobium resources, but the grade of niobium is low and difficult to smelt. Therefore, the extraction of niobium from low-grade niobium concentrates or secondary niobium-containing resources has attracted significant attention. Researchers have studied various smelting technologies for different types of niobium-containing raw materials for years. In this paper, low-grade niobium raw materials are divided into niobium-bearing hot metal, niobium concentrate, niobium-bearing tailings, and niobium slag according to their sources, and the technical principles and characteristics of niobium extraction from different raw materials are analysed. Finally, the main challenges facing current niobium resource smelting technology are summarised, and suggestions for future research directions are proposed.

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)0.001
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Metallurgical QuarterlySame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207