Exploring the mechanical response of low-carbon soil improvement mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As society moves towards decarbonisation, it is important to assess the hydromechanical behaviour of binders that could offer a low-carbon alternative to Portland cement in ground improvement technologies. This work considers two such alternatives: one still largely unexplored (metakaolin-based geopolymers) and a better known one (colloidal silica). Results from unconfined compressive strength, permeability tests, undrained monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests on granular soils (sand and silty sand) treated with those two binders are presented and discussed, emphasizing similarities and differences with the response of similar soils treated with other conventional and unconventional binders. Effects of silt content, curing conditions and soil/binder ratios are examined. Both colloidal silica and metakaolin-based geopolymer significantly improve the mechanical properties of the treated soils, although the geopolymer results in a stronger and stiffer material. Both treatments reduce much the permeability of the treated soil, but the reduction achieved with colloidal silica is larger.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".