MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407996594 · doi:10.1061/9780784485705.018

Microbially Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation as a Carbon Sequestration Technique for Mining Waste

2025· article· en· W4407996594 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha M. Wilcox, Catherine N. Mulligan, Carmen Mihaela Neculita

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecipitationCalcium carbonateCarbon sequestrationCarbonateEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersWaste managementGeochemistryMaterials scienceGeologyCarbon dioxideChemistryMetallurgyEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mining industry is responsible for a surplus of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere. These emissions impact global warming and climate change creating environmental and social implications. It is, therefore, imperative to offset these emissions using carbon sequestration techniques. Both abiotic and biotic carbonation can trap atmospheric CO2 as carbonate (CO32−) precipitates (e.g., calcite, magnesite, and dolomite). However, biotic processes can enhance these chemical reactions using microorganisms as a catalyst. Microbially Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation (MICP) is a biotic process that utilizes several different metabolic pathways and microorganisms to facilitate precipitation. In addition to the precipitation of CaCO3 (mineral trapping), MICP uses geologic and solubility trapping mechanisms to sequester atmospheric CO2, which can be further optimized using carbon capture and storage (CCS) with CO2 injection. This process is feasible with mining and metalliferous waste and shows significant potential as a carbon sequestration technique to the mining industry.

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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207