Influence of bacterial suspension type on the strength of biocemented sand
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
Soil properties, the chemical composition of cementation solution, injection technique, and environmental conditions have all been extensively studied as variables influencing microbially induced carbonate precipitation performance. However, despite the fact that different researchers have used different bacterial suspensions, the influence of bacterial suspension type, more specifically some organic matters in bacterial suspensions, which can play a key role in the morphology and mechanical properties of CaCO 3 , has often been overlooked. In this study, the harvested bacterial solutions were centrifuged to separate bacterial cells and supernatant. The precipitated cells were then diluted with three distinct solutions: supernatant (RB), fresh culture medium (FB), and 0.9% NaCl solution (NB), which were subsequently utilized to stabilize the sand. The results indicated that the bacterial suspension type could greatly impact the strength of biocemented sand, particularly coarse and medium sand. Differences in unconfined compressive strength can be related to differences in precipitated CaCO 3 microstructures, morphologies, and compositions, which were examined using scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction analysis, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.022 | 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