Systematic approach to assessing the applicability of fly-ash-based geopolymer for clay stabilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional soil stabilization by chemical additives such as cement and lime is a well-established technique for ground improvement of problematic soils. However, with the advantage of lower carbon emission and energy consumption, fly-ash-based geopolymer has recently become an attractive alternative to traditional stabilizers. Nevertheless, the literature lacks systemic approaches that assist engineers to apply this promising binder for soil stabilization, including the proper dosages required for an effective treatment. This paper introduces a systematic approach to assess the applicability of fly-ash-based geopolymer for stabilization of clay soils, through a comprehensive experimental program where engineered and natural clays were examined and evaluated, including soil compaction, plasticity, compressive strength, durability, pH level, and impact of pulverization. The results revealed several factors that influence the level of enhancement of geopolymer-treated clays, including the soil mineralogy, plasticity–activity properties, geopolymer concentration, curing time, and pulverization.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".