MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390419596 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.1895

The Significance Of Agricultural Wastes In The Construction Sector

2023· article· en· W4390419596 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nitin Nitin, Yeshpal Yeshpal, Veena Chaudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmentally friendlyAgricultureBambooConstruction wasteBusinessWaste managementPopulationEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of problems are now affecting the building business. The two that matter most are the rise in urban population and the decrease in the amount of resources required to make construction supplies. Businesses have also begun to reassess their strategies for producing ecologically friendly construction materials as a consequence of a greater knowledge of climate change. In the development of ecologically friendly construction materials, a variety of agricultural wastes, such as rice husk ash (RHA), sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA), and bamboo leaf ash (BLA), have shown to be successful alternatives. In this investigation, six distinct agricultural waste-derived construction materials are investigated. The list includes bio-based polymers, building insulation and reinforcement materials, green concrete, particleboard, bricks, and masonry components. The frequency of usage in current building projects should be the primary factor when choosing materials. The goal of this paper is to look at alternative production methods for eco-friendly construction materials since the ones currently in use have negative environmental consequences. The results of the investigation demonstrated that it was successful to produce environmental friendly construction materials from agricultural waste since the completed products satisfied certain building requirements. Using agricultural products in lieu of traditional building materials is advised in order to achieve long-term economic, environmental, and social security.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207