The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methodology of Metal Criticality Determination
Abstract
A comprehensive methodology has been created to quantify the degree of criticality of the metals of the periodic table. In this paper, we present and discuss the methodology, which is comprised of three dimensions: supply risk, environmental implications, and vulnerability to supply restriction. Supply risk differs with the time scale (medium or long), and at its more complex involves several components, themselves composed of a number of distinct indicators drawn from readily available peer-reviewed indexes and public information. Vulnerability to supply restriction differs with the organizational level (i.e., global, national, and corporate). The criticality methodology, an enhancement of a United States National Research Council template, is designed to help corporate, national, and global stakeholders conduct risk evaluation and to inform resource utilization and strategic decision-making. Although we believe our methodological choices lead to the most robust results, the framework has been constructed to permit flexibility by the user. Specific indicators can be deleted or added as desired and weighted as the user deems appropriate. The value of each indicator will evolve over time, and our future research will focus on this evolution. The methodology has proven to be sufficiently robust as to make it applicable across the entire spectrum of metals and organizational levels and provides a structural approach that reflects the multifaceted factors influencing the availability of metals in the 21st century.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011) · Hague Journal on the Rule of Law · doi:10.1017/s1876404511200046 · Cited by 5,621
Cited by
Life Cycle Assessment of Metals: A Scientific Synthesis
Nuss, P., & Eckelman, M. J. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101298 · Cited by 777
Criticality of metals and metalloids
Graedel, T. E., Harper, E. M., Nassar, N. T., Nuss, P., & Reck, B. K. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1500415112 · Cited by 759
Self-citationPauliuk, S. (2018) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019 · Cited by 554
Effect of Chinese policies on rare earth supply chain resilience
Mancheri, N. A., Sprecher, B., Bailey, G., Ge, J., & Tukker, A. (2019) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.11.017 · Cited by 445
Circular economy strategies for mitigating critical material supply issues
Gaustad, G., Krystofik, M., Bustamante, M., & Badami, K. (2018) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.002 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Graedel, T. E., Barr, R., Chandler, C., Chase, T., Choi, J., Christoffersen, L., Friedlander, E., Henly, C., Jun, C., Nassar, N. T., Schechner, D., Warren, S., Yang, M.-Y., & Zhu, C.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2012-01-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1063-1070
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2023647634
- Cited by
- 606
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 42.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.