MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135549383

Lithium sources and deposit types

2025· dissertation· cs· W7135549383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anežka Skřivánková

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languagecs
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLithium (medication)PegmatiteFossil fuelRaw materialComponent (thermodynamics)TantalumSpodumeneGeothermal gradient
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lithium (Li) is critical for developing electromobility, various modern technologies, and storing renewable energy. As a key component of lithium-ion batteries, Li production has increased more than eightfold over the past 15 years, with forecasts indicating a continued growth in demand. This underscores the importance of systematically exploring lithium resources, optimizing extraction technologies, and ensuring the sustainable management of this strategic raw material. The paper provides an overview of the main lithium deposit types, including Lithium-Caesium- Tantalum (LCT) pegmatites (e.g., the Tanco pegmatite in Canada, Bikita in Zimbabwe, and Greenbushes in Australia), greisens and enriched granites (e.g., Cínovec in the Czech Republic), and brines from closed-basin systems - especially within the so-called "Lithium Triangle" (Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile). Alternative resources are also examined, such as geothermal brines (e.g., Campi Flegrei in Italy), brines from oil and gas fields (e.g., in Arkansas and Texas), and lithium-enriched clays (e.g., in Yunnan Province, China, and the McDermitt Caldera, USA). These unconventional resources can potentially become economically significant in the future, complementing the traditional sources. This paper aims to characterize the various deposit...

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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 venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)Same topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207