MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229020296 · doi:10.1155/2022/3836863

Valorization of Water-Based Drill Cuttings through the Bio-Carbonation Approach

2022· article· en· W4229020296 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guowang Tang, Feng Huang, Guihe Wang, Zhengyang Song, Cangqin Jia, Peizhi Yu, Yong-shuai Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Materials Science and Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsCarbonationMaterials scienceGround granulated blast-furnace slagCarbonateMicrostructureCementDolomiteMagnesiumMetallurgyMineralogyComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposed a novel bio-carbonation method to recycle water-based drill cutting (WDC) to prepare samples, which contains reactive magnesia (MgO) cement (RMC), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), and fly ash (FA), with the adoption of microbially induced carbonate precipitation (MICP). Through the investigation of some parameters (i.e., GGBS content, FA content, and curing time), the microstructures and strength development of bio-carbonated RMC-based WDC samples were evaluated. The preliminary results revealed that bio-carbonated RMC-based WDC samples outperformed the control group (i.e., without bio-carbonation) in terms of the 28-day strength (i.e., 9.8 MPa versus 4.4 MPa), which can be assigned to formation of the carbonates, that is, hydrated magnesium carbonates (HMCs). Further, in addition to the identification of HMCs, the microstructural analysis also revealed a continuous carbonate network due to the presence of HMCs, which accounts for the strength boost of samples.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207