MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182758840 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v7n4p23

Mineralogy and Geochemistry of Residual Clay Occurrences in Idi-Ayunre and Akure Areas, Southwestern Nigeria

2015· article· en· W2182758840 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adewole John Adeola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGneissKaoliniteClay mineralsMicroclineAlbiteMineralogyGeologyGoethiteQuartzGeochemistrySaproliteFeldsparPrecambrianPorphyriticWeatheringMetamorphic rockChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="zhengwen">Three residual clay occurrences in Idi-Ayunre, and Akure areas which belong to the Precambrian basement complex of southwestern Nigeria were investigated for their mineralogical, chemical and industrial properties. The investigation was to evaluate their industrial applications and economic importance. The clay within the weathered profiles above banded gneiss at Idi-Ayunre is whitish with red spots, whereas the clays derived from profiles above porphyritic granite and granite gneiss in Akure are grayish and brown in color respectively.</p><p class="zhengwen">The X-ray diffraction studies show that kaolinite is the dominant clay mineral, goethite, microcline, quartz, albite are the major non clay minerals in the samples. Chemical data showed that the average values of SiO<sub>2</sub>, Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, and Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> were 52.3. 30.29 and 3.54 wt% respectively constituting 86.13% of the bulk compositions.</p>Evaluation of the clay thermal characteristic, firing colour, water absorption capacities and shrinkage values show that the brownish Idi-Ayunre clay, gray and brown Akure kaolinitic clays could serve as raw materials for ceramics, building bricks, and other structural wares

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207