Sand-Biosolids Mixture Characterization and Potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosolid-sludge of sewage treatment plants was mixed with clean coarse sands to reduce soil permeability and assess the potential of utilizing such mix for several geotechnical applications. One of the applications was to develop a soil mix with low permeability for use in roadway embankments subjected to torrents from sudden heavy rain in desert areas. The main purpose was to address a sustainable and eco-friendly mix to be used as an additional protection to the current boulder lining for such embankments. In this study, biosolid sludge was mixed with medium dense sand using percentages equal to 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20% by weight of sand. The sludge was broken on sieve number 4" then a Proctor test was performed to determine the optimum moisture content to be used with all these mixes. Several other laboratory tests were conducted such as direct shear, unconfined compression and California bearing ratio to determine changes in the mechanical properties of the mixes. This in addition to the free swelling test to assess the tendency of volume expansion of these sand-biosolid mixes, as well as the constant head permeability test.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".