MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039865863

Mineral processing : foundations of theory and practice of minerallurgy

2007· other· en· W7039865863 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePrace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu · 2007
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscoviteMineralSilicate mineralsSilicateClay mineralsBiotiteMagmaQuartzHydrothermal circulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part I. Introduction to mineral processingMagmatic deposits are connected with magmatic rocks.The deposits of copper and nickel sulfides, native platinum, chromite, titanomagnetite, apatite and corundum are usually of this type.Magmatic rocks are used as building materials.Scarn (metamorphic) deposits formed at the contact of magma and surrounding rock are a result of magma penetration.The scarn deposits may contain iron, copper, wolfram, zinc, lead, graphite, apatite, asbestos, and boron.Pneumatolitic and hydrothermal deposits are also connected with magmatic processes of rock formation.This processes are the source of tin ores, wolfram, molybdenum, copper, gold, silver, zinc, lead, nickel, cobalt, bismuth, arsenic, antimony, mercury, iron, manganese, magnesium ores and barite, fluorite, topaz, and quartz deposits.Sedimentary deposits are formed due to sedimentation processes.Deposits of coal, sandstones, silts, gravels, crude oil, natural gas, limestone, dolomites, marls, iron ores, manganese, bauxite, phosphates belong to this category.Sedimentary deposits are a source of copper, zinc, lead, uranium ores and pyrite, sulfur, clay, and rock salt deposits.Weathering deposits constitute a separate group.They are formed as a result of deposit disintegration by atmospheric factors.Typical weathering deposits are platinum, gold, zirconium, scheelite, silicate, nickel, iron, manganese ores, and nickel hydroxides, and kaolinite deposits.A deposit, after the approval by geologists as to its size and content, becomes a documented deposit, and after initiation of exploitation it becomes mined material.Mined materials can be classified into industrial rocks and minerals, ores, and energy raw materials.Industrial minerals include for instance: fluorite, barite, rock salt, kaolin while industrial rocks include granite, basalt, and limestone.Typical ores are copper, lead, tin, iron, and nickel ores, while energy raw materials are crude oil, natural gas, brown coal, hard coal and peat.Useful minerals are the subject of interest of mining and mineral processing.The are open pit and underground mines.In the latter ones mines useful minerals are mined down to about 1000 meters.If the temperature at that depth is not too high, i.e. the so-called geothermal degree is near the typical value of 3 o C per 100 meters of depth, exploitation is possible at a considerable depth.There are known examples of exploitation down to 3000 meters under the ground surface, like Oragun gold mine in India operating at the depth of 2835 m.The run-of-mine material requires processing in order to make it a marketable product and therefore it is directed for mineral processing.Mineral processing treatments are based on separation processes.Sometimes it is simple separation process which depends on, for example, removing moisture or classification according to grain size.Usually transformation of a mined material into a marketable product requires many separation processes.For example, copper ore has to be ground, screened, subjected to hydraulic classification, flotation, filtration and drying before a final product * value of parameter when the process is non-selective ** equivalent to the Hancock index

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we WrocławiuSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207