MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095235771 · doi:10.25105/psia.v1i1.5964

PENGARUH MOLARITAS ALKALI TERHADAP KUAT TARIK BELAH BETON GEOPOLIMER BERBASIS FLY ASH EX PLTU CIREBON POWER

2019· article· id· W3095235771 on OpenAlexaff
Robby Firli Dwihanto

Bibliographic record

VenueProsiding Seminar Intelektual Muda · 2019
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFly ashWaste managementPhysicsMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penggunaan batu bara di Indonesia mencapai 15,6 juta metrik ton pada Februari 2018. Hasil dari pembakaran yang dihasilkan oleh batubara adalah bottom ash dan fly ash yang dikatagorikan limbah berbahaya dan beracun (B3). Persentase fly ash dari limbah pembakaran batu bara sekitar 80 – 90%, maka diperlukan pemanfaatan untuk mengurangi limbah fly ash tersebut. Beton geopolimer adalah beton yang menggunakan fly ash sebagai pengikat dengan penambahan alkali seperti natrium hidroksida dan natrium silikat. Konsetrasi molaritas natrium hidroksida yang dipakai yaitu 6M, 8M, 10M, 12M, 14M. Perbandingan alkali natrium hidroksida dengan natrium silikat adalah 2:1. pengujian kuat tarik belah dilakukan pada umur beton 28 hari. Dari hasil yang didapat bahwa molaritas natrium hidroksida lebih dari 10M mengurangi kekuatan beton geopolimer yang menggunakan fly ash dari PLTU Cirebon Power. Nilai kuat tarik belah beton geopolimer pada molaritas 6M, 8M, 10M lebih besar dibandingkan beton normal.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProsiding Seminar Intelektual MudaSame topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207