MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925427202 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n12p61

Optimization of Alkaline Activator Mixing and Curing Conditions for A fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Paste System

2015· article· en· W1925427202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar A. Abdulkareem, Mahyuddin Ramli

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopolymerSodium silicateMicrostructureCuring (chemistry)Sodium hydroxideMaterials scienceFly ashCompressive strengthNuclear chemistryAlkalinityComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports the strength development and microstructure characteristics of a fly ash (FA) geopolymer system prepared with an alkaline activator consisting of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution and liquid sodium silicate (Na2SiO3). The effect of Na2SiO3/NaOH mass mixing ratio on the compressive strength and microstructure characteristics of hardened FA geopolymers at different ages was investigated. The influence of different curing conditions on the strength development of the FA geopolymer was also explored. The experimental results revealed that the alkaline activator prepared with Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio of 1.00 provides sufficient alkalinity to promote the geopolymerization reaction and development of high-strength FA geopolymer material. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results showed that the dissolution rates of the FA extremely affected by the content of NaOH solution in the liquid activator. Also, the most effective curing regime was 70 °C for 24 h to produce geopolymers with optimal strength at different aging periods.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207