MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanical properties of sulfate saline soil stabilized by coal gangue-slag composite geopolymers

2024· article· en· W4398202040 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyun Yang, Cheng Ting Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberSulfateSlag (welding)Materials scienceSalineMetallurgyComposite materialMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Geopolymers, which are composed of solid waste, are eco-friendly binders characterized by rapid hardening and high strength. Using geopolymers to stabilize saline soils presents a sustainable solution for soil improvement. This study investigated two geopolymers, HG and SG, composed of a coal gangue-slag composite, to improve saline soils. The stabilized soils were prepared by blending geopolymers with saline soils in varying proportions of 10, 20, 30, and 40% by weight. The strength of the stabilized soils was evaluated based on the geopolymer dosage. Moreover, we examined the strength of the stabilized soils with curing time and elucidated the underlying mechanisms using microscopic analyses including XRD, FTIR, and SEM. This study revealed that: 1) the SG geopolymer outperformed the HG geopolymer in soil strength enhancement; 2) cohesion of the stabilized soil increased as the dosage and curing time increased, while the internal friction angle showed no clear trend; 3) the geopolymer stabilized soil mainly contained quartz, C-A-S-H, N-A-S-H, and C-N-A-S-H gels, and these gels were distributed on the soil particle surface and within the interstitial voids, improving the soil strength, and 4) in saline soil engineering, HG or SG geopolymer dosages should be above 30% and 20%, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207