MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205542510 · doi:10.1016/j.clema.2021.100040

Possibilities for the application of agro-industrial wastes in cementitious materials: A brief review of the Brazilian perspective

2021· review· en· W4205542510 on OpenAlexaff
Afonso Rangel Garcez de Azevedo, Mohamed Amin, Marijana Hadzima-Nyarko, Ibrahim Saad Agwa, Abdullah M. Zeyad, Bassam A. Tayeh, Adeyemi Adesina

Bibliographic record

VenueCleaner Materials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCementitiousBusinessAgricultureWaste managementEnvironmentally friendlyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningEngineeringCementGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brazil is a country of continental dimensions and characteristics with enormous biodiversity of fauna and flora which confers a prominent role in the sector of extraction of agricultural products. However, one of the current challenges is the increasing amounts of agricultural solid wastes generated by different local production processes which end up resulting in enormous environmental liabilities. One way to effectively manage these agro-industrial wastes is by their application in the development of alternative cementitious materials such as mortars and concretes. Thus, the objective of this paper is to discuss the recent advances, challenges and future perspective of the application of some solid agro-industrial wastes generated specifically in Brazil and some other parts of the world in cementitious materials. The application of wastes from pineapple, sugar cane, açai, coconut and rice were explored and discussed. The discussion presented in this paper is anticipated to strongly contribute to the advancement of public policies that enable the real application of these wastes in the development of eco-friendly cementitious materials for civil construction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations126
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCleaner MaterialsSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207