Development of Carbon Consuming Concrete (CCC) using CO2 captured nanobubble water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanobubble water with the ability to capture carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) was used as the mixing water for the development of Carbon Consuming Concrete (CCC). The mechanical properties, volume stability, and pore structures were initially evaluated. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image was analyzed to confirm formation and calcium component on the surface. Differential thermogravimetry (DTG) analysis and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy were used to evaluate the reactivity of cement according to mixing water type. The ability was confirmed in priority that convert calcium hydroxide (CH) into calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) by utilizing abundantly captured CO 2 . The nanobubble increased the calcium content and ratio of micropores , while the total porosity decreased when CO 2 gas was injected. Depending on the mixing water type, each specimen showed strength in the production of different major components (C-S-H, CH, and CaCO 3 ), affecting the compressive strength development, and the injection of CO 2 gas also affected shrinkage behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".