MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936271963 · doi:10.1080/08827508.2015.1055625

Geopolymerization and Its Potential Application in Mine Tailings Consolidation: A Review

2015· review· en· W1936271963 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Rao, Qi Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsAluminosilicateGeopolymerConsolidation (business)BauxitePortland cementRaw materialEnvironmental scienceWaste managementGeologyCompressive strengthMetallurgyMaterials scienceCementChemistryEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new class of construction materials has been in development in the past several decades through geopolymerization reactions of aluminosilicate minerals, which can potentially replace ordinary Portland cement (OPC). In this paper, the brief history of the development of the geopolymerization technology was reviewed with particular emphasis on the differences between “conventional” geopolymers, alkali-activated metallurgical slags, and zeolites. Studies on both the raw materials and the alkali activators in the geopolymerization processes were also reviewed. As oil sands tailings and many mine tailings contain aluminosilicate minerals as their main constituents, geopolymerization reactions have been explored as a potential technological route to treat these tailings for tailings consolidation and heavy metal fixation.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations135
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy ReviewSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207