MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226021620 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2021-0251

Characterisation and pore structure analysis of mortar incorporating valorised rice husk ash

2022· article· en· W4226021620 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arshdeep Singh, Bhupinder Singh, P. S. Mangat

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuskMortarMercury intrusion porosimetryCompressive strengthMaterials scienceCementPorosimetryValorisationPorosityComposite materialWaste managementPorous mediumEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical, chemical, and mineralogical characterisation of as-received rice husk ash (RHA) samples sourced from four rice-growing regions (North, South, East, and West) of India is presented. Valorised RHA was obtained through controlled combustion at two temperature ranges (600–700 °C and 650–700 °C) of husks from the North in an industry set up. Valorisation efficacy has been tested through comparative characterisation of the valorised RHAs with the as-received RHAs from the four regions. Blending of 15% valorised RHA (in the beneficiated state) by weight of cement had no adverse effect on compressive strength even though water–binder ratio of the blended mortar had to be increased by 14% to achieve flow of the control cement mortar. Compared with the control cement mortar, porosity of the mortar blended with the beneficiated RHA measured using mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) increased by up to 10% primarily due to an increase in the number of large mesopores (0.01–0.05 µm).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicConcrete and Cement Materials Research→French-language works237,207→