MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Investigation into the Potential Use of Calcium Carbonate Nanoparticles in Mine Backfill

2018· article· en· W2791275867 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed A. Hefni, Ferri Hassani, Mehrdad Kermani

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCompressive strengthCuring (chemistry)Ground granulated blast-furnace slagCalcium carbonateCementTailingsSuperplasticizerPortland cementComposite materialMineralogyMetallurgyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is part of large and ongoing investigation into the potential use of calcium carbonate nanoparticles (NCaCO 3 ) to improve the mechanical and physical properties of mine backfill. The investigation was conducted in two phases. In phase I, gold tailings were used to prepare backfill sample using Portland cement (PC) as the binding agent under various NCaCO 3 and superplasticizer (SP) dosages. In phase II, fine silica sand was used to minimize the reactive nature of tailings, which can adversely affect uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). Samples in this phase were prepared under various NCaCO 3 dosages using slag:PC weight ratios of 80:20 as the binding agent. Select samples from phase II were subjected to Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) to compare microstructural properties before and after addition of NCaCO 3 . Phase I results showed that the UCS of samples containing NCaCO 3 was low, even when SP was used to improve particle dispersion. Phase II samples exhibited up to 9.5% higher UCS after 28 days of curing at a NCaCO 3 dosage of 6% by weight of binder. MIP results showed that samples containing NCaCO 3 were less porous than the corresponding controlled silica sand backfill samples, which in turn influenced the UCS results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207