The Dolerites of Cross River State (DCRS): Physical and Mechanical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dolerite occurs in appreciable quantity in Cross River State and these have been locally quarried for construction without proper evaluation of its suitability as construction stones. The physical and mechanical properties as well as the general mineralogy were analyzed in this work to determine the suitability of these dolerites as construction aggregate. Results shows that uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) ranges from 34.2 N/mm2 to 56 N/mm2, durability 96.9% to 99.21%, specific gravity (SG) 2.46 to 3, water absorption 0.14% to 1.59 % with an average porosity of 1.19. The medium/strong compressive strength, low porosity and water absorption, average density and specific gravity and high durability makes it suitable for construction but the presence of plagioclase and pyroxene which sometimes alters to clays and chlorite causing swelling when wet and shrinking when dry is a major limitation. Thus these dolerites without proper treatment/stabilization are not suitable for industrial/heavy traffic construction but can be readily and effectively applied in concrete for light foundation loads and buildings. Results also show that these dolerite are hard, tough, compact and durable and can replace the more expensive/competent construction stones (granite and /or gneiss) for light construction works, however the environmental conditions within which it would be applied should be evaluated and the first few meters around a dolerite sill or dyke should be avoided during quarrying for construction stones as the more softer rocks are found there.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".