ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6459-8174
Current Organisations
Geneva University
,
University of Canterbury
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2017
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 23-06-2022
DOI: 10.3389/FCLIM.2022.913632
Abstract: Mineral carbonation of alkaline mine residues is a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy that can be employed by the mining industry. Here, we describe the mineralogy and reactivity of processed kimberlites and kimberlite ore from Venetia (South Africa) and Gahcho Kué (Canada) diamond mines, which are smectite-rich (2.3–44.1 wt.%). Whereas, serpentines, olivines, hydrotalcites and brucite have been traditionally used for mineral carbonation, little is known about the reactivity of smectites to CO 2 . The smectite from both mines is distributed as a fine-matrix and is saponite, M x / m m + Mg 3 (Al x Si 4−x )O 10 (OH) 2 · n H 2 O, where the layer charge deficiency is balanced by labile, hydrated interlayer cations (M m + ). A positive correlation between cation exchange capacity and saponite content indicates that smectite is the most reactive phase within these ultramafic rocks and that it can be used as a source of labile Mg 2+ and Ca 2+ for carbonation reactions. Our work shows that smectites provide the fast reactivity of kimberlite to CO 2 in the absence of the highly reactive mineral brucite [Mg(OH) 2 ]. It opens up the possibility of using other, previously inaccessible rock types for mineral carbonation including tailings from smectite-rich sediment-hosted metal deposits and oil sands tailings. We present a decision tree for accelerated mineral carbonation at mines based on this revised understanding of mineralogical controls on carbonation potential.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2022
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 15-02-2023
Abstract: Replication is an important “credibility control” mechanism for clarifying the reliability of published findings. However, replication is costly, and it is infeasible to replicate everything. Accurate, fast, lower cost alternatives such as eliciting predictions from experts or novices could accelerate credibility assessment and improve allocation of replication resources for important and uncertain findings. We elicited judgments from experts and novices on 100 claims from preprints about an emerging area of research (COVID-19 pandemic) using a new interactive structured elicitation protocol and we conducted 35 new replications. Participants’ average estimates were similar to the observed replication rate of 60%. After interacting with their peers, novices updated both their estimates and confidence in their judgements significantly more than experts and their accuracy improved more between elicitation rounds. Experts’ average accuracy was 0.54 (95% CI: [0.454, 0.628]) after interaction and they correctly classified 55% of claims novices’ average accuracy was 0.55 (95% CI: [0.455, 0.628]), correctly classifying 61% of claims. The difference in accuracy between experts and novices was not significant and their judgments on the full set of claims were strongly correlated (r=.48). These results are consistent with prior investigations eliciting predictions about the replicability of published findings in established areas of research and suggest that expertise may not be required for credibility assessment of some research findings.
No related grants have been discovered for W. Robert Reed.