Fly ash/paper sludge as constituents of cements: hydration phases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ternary cements prepared with equal amounts of thermally activated paper sludge and fly ash in proportions of 35% and 50%, in substitution of ordinary Portland cement, are mixed to study their phase stability. The underlying intention is to increase the proportional substitution of waste products in these types of cement, thereby consigning less waste to landfill sites. The hydration phases of the cement specimens were analysed using thermogravimetric/derivative thermogravimetric (TG/DTG) analysis, X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy/energy-dispersive X-ray (SEM/EDX) spectroscopy. The phases identified in the cement blends include Portlandite, monocarboaluminate compound C4AC̅H12, and layered double hydroxides–type compounds (LDH), as well as ettringite and calcium silicate hydrate gels. Increased formation of both tetracalcium aluminate carbonate 12 hydrate (C4ACH12) and LDH-type compounds and reductions in ettringite and portlandite were observed when the proportional substitution of cement by waste products rose from 35% to 50%. A characteristic compound of pozzolanic reactions, bicalcium silicate (C2ASH8), was not observed, suggesting that it is inhibited in these types of substitutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".