MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288357891 · doi:10.14288/1.0042390

Slag reclamation in the 21st century

2009· article· en· W2288357891 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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterials Engineering and Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationSlag (welding)Environmental scienceEngineeringHistoryArchaeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plan of action is proposed to develop uses of non-ferrous slag and production of certain industrial materials from this waste material. A review of chemistry of non-ferrous slags suggested that it can be reprocessed to impart "cementitious" properties and furthermore an advantage could be taken of their latent "pozzolonaic" properties to test several potential applications such as - clinker ingredient, asphalt concrete additive, cemented mine backfill and binder for base stabilization. The authors note that in the last century blast furnace slag was considered as a "waste" product whose stocks grew at an alarming rate due to decades of accumulation and iron producers had to develop uses of this material to avoid a potentially catastrophic environmental situation. Non-ferrous slag producers could emulate this example set by the iron producers who successfully converted a "waste" into a "byproduct". Environmental concerns of the new millennium demand that the industry should find ways and means of depleting the ever-growing stockpiles of non-ferrous slag. The authors conclude that serious considerations from environmental and economic fronts favor reclamation of old slag dumps as well as processing of new non-ferrous slag as a viable alternative to the existing dumping practice.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.147 · 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