Comparative Analysis of Statistical Thickness Models for the Determination of the External Specific Surface and the Surface of the Micropores of Materials: The Case of a Clay Concrete Stabilized Using Sugar Cane Molasses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, four empirical models of statistical thickness, namely the models of Harkins and Jura, Hasley, Carbon Black and Jaroniec, were compared in order to determine the textural properties (external surface and surface of micropores) of a clay concrete without molasses and clay concretes stabilized with 8%, 12% and 16% molasses. The results obtained show that Hasley’s model can be used to obtain the external surfaces. However, it does not allow the surface of the micropores to be obtained, and is not suitable for the case of simple clay concrete (without molasses) and for clay concretes stabilized with molasses. The Carbon Black, Jaroniec and Harkins and Jura models can be used for clay concrete and stabilized clay concrete. However, the Carbon Black model is the most relevant for clay concrete and the Harkins and Jura model is for molasses-stabilized clay concrete. These last two models augur well for future research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".