MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128239748 · doi:10.5897/jmer.9000049

Utilization of demolished concrete, grog, hydrated lime and cement kiln dust in building materials

2011· article· en· W2128239748 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementLimeCement kilnGrogKilnBrickWaste managementEnvironmental scienceClinker (cement)MetallurgyMaterials scienceAggregate (composite)MortarPortland cementComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is desirable to completely recycle concrete waste in order to protect natural resources and reduce environment pollution. In this paper, the studied reference  mix composed of demolished waste concrete/grog/hydrated lime in the ratio of (40/50/10, wt. %), while other mixes has cement kiln dust as a partial replacement of hydrated lime in the ratio from zero up to complete replacement. Both grog and burned cement kiln dust were obtained from firing clay materials as well as by-pass cement kiln dust at 850°C for 1 h with a heating rate of 5°C/min. Results of this study possess a method for recycling of demolished wastes in brick making as fine materials not in the traditional method that used it as aggregate. Waste concrete, grog, hydrated lime and by-pass cement dust can be used instead of the cement constituent of mortar and hydrated building brick making.   Key words: Demolished concrete, cement kiln dust, grog.

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.208 · 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