MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417486177 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.12.402

Data reconciliation of mineral liberation distributions

2025· article· en· W4417486177 on OpenAlexaff
David-Alexandre Desrosiers, Jocelyn Bouchard, Éric Poulin, Raphaël Mermillod-Blondin, Hassan Bouzahzah

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsAgnico Eagle (Canada)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineralMineral processingGangueMultilinear mapReliability (semiconductor)LiberationQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since several decades, most measurements in mineral processing plants have been reconciled to improve their accuracy and validity. However, existing methods cannot simultaneously reconcile mineral grades, liberation distributions, and elemental assays. This work proposes a multilinear framework for reconciling measurements from an industrial flotation cell, including particles flowrates, solids fractions, particle size distributions, elemental and mineralogical assays, and mineral liberation distributions for complex lithologies. Results demonstrate improved reliability of performance indicators, such as recovery, by enforcing mass balance equations. A limited amount of minerals are considered by iterating on the gangue elemental composition, thus greatly reducing the problem size.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207