The Development of a Concrete Block Containing PET Plastic Bottle Flakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plastic waste is increasing continuously, especially in the form of throw away packaging such as drinking water bottles, designed to be convenient, inexpensive, and accessible. Plastic disposal, however, is difficult and has a lower recyclability rate than other types of materials such as glass and paper. This study presents a method of reducing the amount of plastic waste by recycling plastic containers in architectural work. Non-load-bearing concrete blocks for safe and efficient use can be manufactured using plastic flakes as an alternative material aggregate. This study developed such block sand tested them for compressive strength integrating four major factors:(1) the cement to aggregate ratio, (2) the water to cement ratio, (3) the size of plastic flakes used and (4) the proportion of plastic flake that replaced sand. The findings revealed that using a ratio of 1:3 cement to aggregate, where the aggregate mix comprised of 20% small and medium sized (combined at 1:1) plastic flakes plus 80% sand and a water to cement ratio of 0.5, provided the optimal compressive strength to form a concrete block that can be used to construct a non-load bearing wall.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".