Design and Testing of Bioreceptive Porous Concrete: A New Substrate for Soilless Plant Growth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porous concrete with a high void content has gained popularity in urban environments as it allows water to spread through its pores. Permeability is a desired characteristic when developing media for plant growth as it enables roots to spread and anchor themselves. This leads to the aim of this study, developing a porous concrete substrate for plant growth with a pH lower than that of standard concrete. The substrate incorporates recovered industrial byproducts from blast furnaces. The materials used in the design consist of a blast furnace slag binder, two proprietary alkali activators, quartz aggregates (2.0–3.2 mm in size), a void content of 30%, and a water to binder ratio of 0.295. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), and romaine lettuce (Lactuva sativa) were seeded onto the slag porous concrete for a 28-day hydroponic experiment. The treatments with porous concrete substrates differed in concentrations of the nutrient solution: Hoagland normal (1×), double Hoagland (2×), and quintuple Hoagland (5×). Rockwool with a 1× nutrient solution was selected as the control treatment, a hydroponic standard for plant growth. The dry mass values of the 2× treatment and the control treatment were similar (P > 0.05). The largest dry mass of all treatments investigated was the radish in the 2× treatment at 125.4% of the control radish dry mass.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it