MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128696231 · doi:10.5539/jms.v11n1p74

Influence of Addition Contents of Iron Ore Tailings on Structural Mortar

2021· article· en· W3128696231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nara Linhares Borges de Castro, Bruna Silva Almada, Abner Araújo Fajardo, Carlos Augusto Silva de Oliveira, White José dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexural strengthUltimate tensile strengthMortarCompressive strengthMaterials scienceDurabilityCarbonationMicrostructureCementitiousPorosityTailingsHematiteCementComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study discusses and analyzes an alternative of IOT reuse as addition in structural mortars, evaluating the influence of IOT addition contents. The material was physically and chemically characterized. Structural mortars were molded with 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% of addition of IOT in relation to cement mass. We investigate physical properties, mechanical indicators, durability indicators and microstructure. The tailings are composed of predominantly quartz, hematite and goethite, and no components were found that could compromise the cementitious composites. The addition of IOT provided a tendency to reduce open porosity. The addition of 30% IOT was the most efficient in closing pores. All addition contents led to the maintenance or gains in mechanical properties, and a 10% gain in flexural tensile strength was observed for the addition of 10% IOT. The addition of 40% IOT promoted a 14% gain in compressive strength and maintenance of flexural tensile strength. This addition content evidences that the carbonation depth was not significantly affected. Based on the results, the addition percentages of 30-40% are interesting as to the analyzed properties.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207