Production of glass ceramic from rice husk and periwinkle shells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glass ceramic was produced by replacing the major glass forming materials, silica and calcium oxide, with derivates from rice husk and periwinkle shells respectively. Glass formulation comprising of silica extracted from the rice husk and calcium oxide from powdered calcined periwinkle shells were compounded with analytical grade sodium carbonate. Silica was extracted from rice husk and characterized using XRD. SEM/EDS of the periwinkle shell revealed a structure dominated by calcium and oxygen; however, there was a significant presence of magnesium. Glass ceramic was produced by melting the mixture at 1300 °C followed by melt quenching. FTIR of the material showed the presence of the carbonyl functional group, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide and various bond configurations of silica. SEM of the glass ceramic showed sparsely distributed particles of the crystalline phase, while XRD revealed the presence of 55% amorphous phase. Several crystalline phases were present, dominated by polymorphs of silica such as quartz (22.15 wt.%) and cristobalite (5.68 wt.%). Also present are mullite (5.58 wt.%), calcite (1.95 wt.%) and Wollastonite (6.86 wt.%). Noticeable in the crystalline phase is Whitlockite (2.33 wt.%), a magnesium and phosphorus rich animal-source bio ceramic, traceable to the periwinkle which may impart some bioactivity to the material.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".