MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414200546 · doi:10.3390/pr13092945

Mineral-Based Magnesium Extraction Technologies: Current and Future Practices

2025· article· en· W4414200546 on OpenAlex
Bijan Taheri, Faı̈çal Larachi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnesiumExtraction (chemistry)Process (computing)Current (fluid)Seawater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnesium is a valuable industrial metal prized for its strength and reactivity. Traditionally, magnesium was extracted from seawater and brines. However, to meet the rising global demand, it is now primarily sourced from mineral deposits. This shift has sparked renewed interest in extracting magnesium from non-saline sources, including carbonates, silicates, halides, oxides, and hydroxides. This review examines the extraction technologies currently used for these mineral-based resources, including pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, and electrometallurgical methods. Each method is assessed based on the reactions involved in the transformation, operational principles, efficiency, and energy requirements. The review emphasizes the importance of mineral pretreatment—thermal, mechanical, and chemical—in improving magnesium recovery, especially from refractory silicates. By summarizing recent advancements and process innovations, the review aims to inform future research and industrial practices, and support the development of sustainable, cost-effective, and scalable magnesium extraction strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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