MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116908559 · doi:10.3749/2400011

A Re-Examination of the Solubility of Indium in Hydrothermally Synthesized Galena and Sphalerite

2025· article· en· W7116908559 on OpenAlexaff
S. A. Kissin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and Petrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSphaleriteGalenaSolubilityIndiumHydrothermal circulationAtmospheric temperature range

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Galena and sphalerite were synthesized in hydrothermal pressure vessels with In114m as a tracer in order to establish In solubility over a range of temperatures of geological interest. Previous experimental results were re-examined in the light of knowledge of the effects of Cu, Ag, and Fe in In-containing galena and sphalerite systems, improved analytical technique, and with recognition of problems with some experimental runs. The solubility of In in galena was determined as 16.85 ppm at 350 °C, 25.3 ppm at 400 °C, 40.12 ppm at 450 °C, and 98.18 ppm at 500 °C. The solubility at 550 °C as ≥ 72 ppm. Solubility of In in sphalerite was determined to be ≥32.68 ppm at 500 °C and 86.60 ppm at 550 °C by radiometric measurements. Luminescence measurements determined solubilities of 22 ppm at 500 °C and 72 ppm at 550 °C. A survey of the In-contents of galena and sphalerite in ore deposits is based on data from LA-ICP-MS analyses. The results for galena are higher than the range of In-contents in natural galena, possibly due to partitioning of indium to coexisting sphalerite and chalcopyrite. The low In-contents in sphalerite determined at relatively high temperatures are in marked disagreement with high In-contents in natural sphalerite. The coupled substitution In + Cu ⇌ 2Zn in sphalerite, and other coupled substitutions, is the likely explanation for this difference.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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 venueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and PetrologySame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207