MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805452233 · doi:10.1061/9780784481592.012

EICP Treatment of Soil by Using Urease Enzyme Extracted from Watermelon Seeds

2018· article· en· W2805452233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neda Javadi, Hamed Khodadadi, Nasser Hamdan, Edward Kavazanjian

Bibliographic record

VenueIFCEE 2018 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreaseUreaChemistryCalcium carbonateEnzymeExtraction (chemistry)ChromatographyBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of an effort to lower the cost of urease enzyme used in enzyme induced carbonate precipitation (EICP) for soil improvement, urease enzyme was extracted from watermelon seeds. EICP is a biologically-based ground improvement technique in which a solution containing calcium, urea, and urease enzyme is used to induce calcium carbonate precipitation in a granular soil, enhancing strength, and stiffness. To reduce the enzyme cost by obtaining it from a waste material, the effectiveness of urease enzyme extracted from watermelon seeds, a urease-rich agricultural waste, was evaluated. Low-tech methods were employed for extraction and purification of the enzyme. The extracted enzyme, which showed urease activity of around 611 U/ml, was used to treat Ottawa 20/30 sand. Results of scanning electron microscope imaging and energy dispersive X-ray analysis demonstrated calcium carbonate precipitation. The ratio of the precipitated carbonate content to the theoretical maximum was found to be around 64%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations57
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFCEE 2018Same topicMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207