MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138326007 · doi:10.5897/ijps.9000617

Utilization of solid wastes in construction materials

2010· article· en· W2138326007 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of the Physical Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMunicipal solid wasteWaste managementSafeguardProduction (economics)Construction engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this study is to investigate the potential use of various solid wastes for producing construction materials. The paper is based on the comprehensive review of available literature on the construction materials including different kinds of solid wastes. The traditional methods for producing construction materials are using the valuable natural resources. Besides, the industrial and urban management systems are generating solid wastes, and most often dumping them in open fields. These activities pose serious detrimental effects on the environment. To safeguard the environment, many efforts are being made for the recycling of different types of solid wastes with a view to utilizing them in the production of various construction materials. This paper discusses the environmental implications caused by the generation of various solid wastes, and highlights their recycling potentials and possible use for producing construction materials. In addition, this paper shows the applications of solid waste based construction materials in real construction, and identifies the research needs.   Key words: Construction, construction materials, environment, recycling, solid wastes.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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