Combined Effect of Marble Waste as Powder and Aggregate Form on the Proprieties of the Mortar
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
Recycling and recovery of waste are now considered as a solution for the future to protect the environment. The marble processing workshops on the other hand, generate a large amount of waste in the form of powder and small parts. Due to these facts, the aim of this study is to valorize marble waste in the form of powder and crushed aggregates (sand) as additions in cementitious matrix building materials. The characterization of the materials used to formulate mortars based on natural dune sand with marble powder and mortars based on mixed sand (dunes sand and crushed sand) and marble powder was measure. In this sense, several series have been studied, varying the addition rate of the marble powder in order to reduce the porosity of the cement matrix, using crushed marble sand to increase the granular cohesion and using of a reducing water admixture (MEDAPLAST SP40) for more performance mortars. Very appreciable results were observed for a dosage of 15% of marble powder and for the combination of 15% of marble powder with 20% of crushed marble sand. This research recommends recycling 35% of marble waste in the cement matrix that contribute effectively to the preservation of the environment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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