Effect of water-to-cement ratio and curing method on the strength, shrinkage and slump of the biosand filter concrete body
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
The biosand filter is a household-level water treatment technology used globally in low-resource settings. As of December 2016, over 900,000 biosand filters had been implemented in 60 countries around the world. Local, decentralized production is one of the main advantages of this technology, but it also creates challenges, especially in regards to quality control. Using the current recommended proportions for the biosand filter concrete mix, slump was measured at water-to-cement ratios of 0.51, 0.64 and 0.76, with two replicates for each level. Twenty-eight-day strength was tested on four replicate cylinders, each at water-to-cement ratios of 0.51, 0.59, 0.67 and 0.76. Wet curing and dry curing were compared for 28-day strength and for their effect on shrinkage. Maximum strength occurred at water-to-cement ratios of 0.51-0.59, equivalent to 8-9.3 L water for a full-scale filter assuming saturated media, corresponding to a slump class of S1 (10-40 mm). Wet curing significantly improved strength of the concrete mix and reduced shrinkage. Quality control measures such as the slump test can significantly improve the quality within decentralized production of biosand filters, despite localized differences in production conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it