Experimental Study on the Roundness of Silica Sand from Sidrap: Improvement by Means of Abrasion and Measurement Using a Practical New Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving roundness of a local silica sand was conducted by abrasion using a laboratory ball mill having a diameter of about 156 mm with steel milling balls of 2800 g. Abrasion was conducted at a fixed speed of 30 rpm; with various sand loadings of 150, 200, and 250 g; and milling time of 60, 105, and 120 min. Roundness was evaluated based on Wadell equation and topography of particle surface was measured by using a new practical method consisting of a build-in camera in mobile phone and common image processing application. Results of measurement using this new proposed method had been confirmed with roundness reported from two service laboratories. The abrasion could increase the roundness of Sidrap sand from 0.20 to an average of 0.31, while the measured roundness of Ottawa standard sand was about 0.46. Three types of mortar were prepared from Sidrap sands before and after abrasion, as well as Ottawa sand. Compressive strengths of mortar after aging of 28 days were 345, 375, and 333 MPa respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".