MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220951525 · doi:10.3390/ma15051951

Incorporation of Optical Density into the Blending Design for a Biocement Solution

2022· article· en· W4220951525 on OpenAlexaff
Masaharu Fukue, Zbigniew Lechowicz, Yuichi Fujimori, Kentaro Emori, Catherine N. Mulligan

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationSeawaterMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MathematicsChemistryThermodynamicsPhysicsChromatographyMeteorologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The engineering practices for applying the microbial precipitation of carbonates require a design of the blending biocement solution (BCS). The BCS is usually blended with concentrated strains NO-A10, reaction media, such as urea and CaCl2, and a solvent, i.e., water or seawater. To characterize the BCS, the unknown microbial characteristics, such as the cell viability, are complex factors. Therefore, the optical density (OD) was redefined as Rcv OD*, in which OD* was the tentative OD of the BCS used and Rcv was the conversion rate concerning the cell viability. To determine Rcv values, a standard precipitation curve based on the precipitation rate at 24 h was determined. It was found that the curve was expressed by λ1 OD+ λ2 OD2, in which λ1 and λ2 were 8.46 M and −17.633 M, respectively. With this, the Rcv and OD values of unknown BCS were estimated from the results of precipitation tests using arbitrary OD* values. By extending the testing time, the second order term of OD or OD* was negligible. Accordingly, the precipitation amount is expressed as 8.46 OD, in which the OD can be estimated by precipitation tests using arbitrary OD* values of BCSs. Unless the Ca2+ value is dominant, the optimum blending of BCS can be determined by OD. Thus, it is concluded that the blending design of BCS is achieved using 8.46 OD, or 8.46 Rcv OD*, and the standard precipitation curve was defined in this study.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207