Utilization of white cement bypass dust as filler in asphalt concrete mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was carried out to investigate potential reuses of white cement bypass dust (WCBPD) in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. For this purpose, five different asphalt concrete mixtures were prepared using lime mineral filler (control), 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8% WCBPD substitution for lime mineral filler (LMF). The mixtures were subjected to Marshall testing. Results indicated that the substitution of 2% WCBPD for LMF essentially produced almost the same optimum bitumen content (OBC) as the control mixtures (5.5% by weight of aggregate). The substitution of 4% WCBPD slightly increased the OBC to 5.7% by weight of aggregate without any significant negative effect on asphalt concrete properties (stability, flow, voids in mineral aggregates (VMA), and percent of air voids (Pav)). However, further increase in the substitution ratios (6% and 8%) WCBPD was associated with an increase in the OBC to 6.1% and 6.2%, respectively, which makes them uneconomical mixtures. Thus, 4% WCBPD substitution for LMF would be the optimum used in asphalt paving 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".