Mechanism of reactive magnesia – ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) soil stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactive magnesia (MgO)-activated ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS), with fixed GGBS dosages but varying MgO/GGBS ratios, was used for stabilization of two soils and compared with brucite (Mg(OH) 2 )-activated GGBS and hydrated lime (Ca(OH) 2 )-activated GGBS. A range of tests, including unconfined compressive strength testing, X-ray diffraction, and scanning electron microscopy, was conducted to study the mechanical, chemical, and microstructural properties of the stabilized soils, and then to investigate the mechanism of MgO–GGBS soil stabilization. Results indicate that the Mg(OH) 2 had a minimal activating efficacy for GGBS-stabilized soil, while the reactive MgO yielded a higher activating efficacy than the Ca(OH) 2 . The activator–soil reactions in the stabilized soil slowed down the activating reaction rate for GGBS; this effect was less significant in MgO–GGBS-stabilized soil than in Ca(OH) 2 –GGBS-stabilized soil, and hence the GGBS hydration rate in the former was less reduced by the soil than the latter. The Mg 2+ and OH − ions produced from MgO dissolution participated in the GGBS hydration reactions without precipitating Mg(OH) 2 . The common hydration products in all GGBS-stabilized soils were calcium silicate hydrate–like compounds. Additionally, hydrotalcite and calcite could be produced in MgO–GGBS- and Ca(OH) 2 –GGBS-stabilized soils, respectively, especially with a high activator/GGBS ratio.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".