Microstructure of Fine Clay Soils Stabilized with Sugarcane Molasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugar cane molasses has proved cohesive and excellent performance on soil aggregates (fine particles). However, the microstructure of consolidated soil by the molasses is not yet subjected to research. The analysis results of sample without molasses (0%) and consolidated samples at 8%, 12%, and 16% show that the molasses acts on the structure of clayey fine soil developing its microstructure of airy matrix type (sample without molasses (0%) to a microstructure of a qualified type, more solid. Consolidated samples to 8%, 12%, 16% of molasses). We also observe the presence of inter-aggregate pores (mesopores) of similar size in all samples. The results of porosimetrical analyses (BJH) of the sample without molasses and consolidated samples to 8%, 12%, and 16% show that simultaneous porous volumes of samples are reduced with the increasing of molasses quantity. This latter, therefore, acts on the porous volume (micropore 2 nm and mesopore 9 nm) by reducing them which really means, molasses occupies the porous volume of the sample. However, this sample seems not to have any effect on the size of mesopores 9 nm. Thus, this product induces the evolution of the soil structure towards the highly dense and condensed structure. Consequently, materials in consolidated soil by molasses will have mechanical properties far superior to those of materials consolidated soil without molasses.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".