MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096742671

CADMIUM AND CADMIUM COMPOUNDS Cadmium and cadmium compounds were considered by previous IARC Working Groups

2013· article· en· W7096742671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadmiumMetalMercury (programming language)Electrical resistivity and conductivityCADMIUM EXPOSURESolid-state
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

consideration in the present evaluation. 1. Exposure Data 1.1 Identification of the agents Synonyms, trade names and molecular formulae for cadmium, cadmium–copper alloy, and some cadmium compounds are presented in Table 1.1. The cadmium compounds shown are those for which data on carcinogenicity or mutagenicity were available or which are commercially important compounds. It is not an exhaustive list, and does not necessarily include all of the most commercially important cadmium-containing substances. 1.2 Chemical and physical properties of the agents Cadmium (atomic number, 48; relative atomic mass, 112.41) is a metal, which belongs to group IIB of the periodic table. The oxidation state of almost all cadmium compounds is +2, although a few compounds have been reported in which it is +1. Selected chemical and physical properties of cadmium compounds are presented in the previous IARC Monograph (IARC, 1993a). 1.3 Use of the agents Cadmium metal has specific properties that make it suitable for a wide variety of industrial applications. These include: excellent corrosion resistance, low melting temperature, high ductility, high thermal and electrical conductivity (National Resources Canada, 2007). It is used and traded globally as a metal and as a component in six classes of products, where it imparts distinct performance advantages. According to the US Geological Survey, the principal uses of cadmium in 2007 were: nickel– cadmium (Ni–Cd) batteries, 83%; pigments, 8%; coatings and plating, 7%; stabilizers for plastics, 1.2%; and other (includes non-ferrous alloys, semiconductors and photovoltaic devices), 0.8%

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.007

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207