MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1720147241 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2012-0232

Evolution of thermal and mechanical properties of mine tailings and fly ash mixtures during curing period

2014· article· en· W1720147241 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Joon Kyu Lee, Julie Q. Shang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsTailingsFly ashCompactionCompressive strengthMaterials scienceCementEfflorescenceGeotechnical engineeringThermal conductivityCuring (chemistry)Environmental scienceGeologyMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fly ash is often used as a binder for modifying the properties of geomaterials, such as organic and expansive soils, sludge from water treatment, dredged sediments, mine tailings, etc. Changes in thermal and mechanical properties of compacted mixtures of mine tailings and fly ash are studied over a curing period of 120 h. The study includes the measurement of thermal conductivity, temperature, unconfined compressive strength, and elastic modulus. Effects of the amount of fly ash added to mine tailings, molding water content, and compaction energy on these properties are investigated. Pore-size distribution and surface texture are analyzed to characterize the microstructures of fly ash treated–mine tailings. Relationships between the thermal conductivity and properties that capture packing and mechanical characteristics of mine tailings and fly ash mixtures are established. These observations provide enhanced understanding of thermal, mechanical, and structural properties of fly ash–treated mine tailings, which is associated with the hydration process at the early stage of the mixtures.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 head0.166
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207