Manufactured aggregate from cement kiln dust
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a laboratory study that evaluated the geotechnical and geoenvironmental properties of a manufactured aggregate derived from cement kiln dust (CKD). The aggregate manufacturing process involves accelerated carbonation technology (ACT), has been used to treat contaminated soils at trial scale. The process operates at commercial scale in the UK, producing aggregates from thermal residues. The ACT process relies on the accelerated reaction of carbon dioxide with the calcium oxide in the CKD material in the presence of water. No additional binder was used in this study, relying solely instead on the formation of carbonate to form the aggregate. In this paper, the aggregate manufacturing process is briefly described. To explore future potential construction applications of the aggregate, several geotechnical test results are used to assess strength and durability (i.e. individual particle strength, internal shear strength of the particle assemblage, wet–dry testing, freeze–thaw testing). Screening tests on the aggregate’s geoenvironmental characteristics are discussed (metal leaching, dissolved heavy metal adsorption and hydraulic conductivity) to assess potential uses further. It is shown that the aggregate studied has adequate properties for a variety of construction applications, but is unsuitable for use in freezing and thawing environments.
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 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) | 0.007 | 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 it