Enhancing Soil with Low-Cost Pozzolanic Materials: Rice Husk Ash and Groundnut Shell Ash Compared to Cement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates whether low-cost pozzolanic materials such as rice husk ash, groundnut shell ash can improvement soil used in the study that are classified as Lowplasticity clays (cl) and activity of it equal to 1.05 as a replacement for traditional, costly additives.the percentage are used be 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% of weight soil for each additive.chemical properties were studied for rice husk ash, groundnut shell ash, and cement Portland such as CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, K2O, and Na2O.Also, preand post-mixture soil was tested for Atterberg's Limit, Activity, Shrinkage Limit, Clay value, Proctor Standard Compaction, and Unconfined Compressive Strength.Untreated soil samples were compared to treated ones.Adding 8% cement OPC, 10% groundnut shell ash, and 10% rice husk ash enhanced soil cohesiveness from 21 to 57.5, 52, and 45 kPa, respectively, also the optimal soil moisture content dropped from 15% to 8%, 10.5%, and 10% for mixes.Increased mixer percentages lead to reduced maximum dry unit weight and optimized water content.Based on these observations aims to develop effective solutions for treatment expensive soil in engineering and construction projects.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it