Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ferruginous lime is the name given to burnt lime (CaO) coated with di‐calcium ferrite (2CaO·Fe2O3). Its high degradation strength, its resistance to hydration and its capacity for fast and complete solution of fluxes in the BOF and EAF make it extremely attractive as a steelmaking flux. The objectives of the present work were to assess the feasibility of producing ferruginous lime in a rotary‐kiln‐type reactor and to determine the operating conditions favourable both for the formation of a hydration resistant product and the minimisation of problems such as accretions and agglomerations within the reactor. With respect to processing conditions, the trials suggest that ferruginous lime should be generated using a peak reaction temperature of 1260 °C and allowing 45 min at greater than 1200 °C. The optimal oxide addition is 10 % (referring to mass contents) of the limestone charge to the rotary lime kiln. When subjected to short duration hydrating conditions i.e. 30 min in contact with steam at 100 °C (as per ASTM specification X6) the ferruginous lime product exhibited good resistance to hydration (relative to pure CaO) and moderate physical degradation. Laboratory tests demonstrated the significantly enhanced rate and degree of dissolution of ferruginous lime (cf. uncoated lime) in a steelmaking slag.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".