Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of using concrete products to uptake carbon dioxide emitted from cement production were investigated.All three primary ingredients of concrete:cement binder,fine aggregates and coarse aggregates,are considered as CO2 absorbents to maximize carbon sequestration in concrete and produce concrete aggregates from calcium-containing steel slag.It is found that two-hour carbonation enabled the Portland cement can consume ≥14% of CO2,and its strength is comparable to that after 7 d conventional curing.Ladle slag fines could take 4%-12% of CO2 due to their smaller particle size and can be used as a substitution to natural river sand.Basic oxygen furnace(BOF) slag shows an excellent reactivity with CO2.The CO2 uptake capacity in manufactured coarse BOF slag aggregates reaches 12%.The solid BOF steel slag compact produced has a strength compared to crushed limestone.If all three solid components of concrete can be used to uptake CO2,one typical concrete masonry unit(CMU,20 cm × 20 cm × 20 cm) can sequester 1.39 kg of CO2.Carbon sequestration in concrete is an economic and effective approach that directly reduces carbon emission from cement industry.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".