MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412754952 · doi:10.11159/iccste25.151

Influence of Recycled PET Particle Size on the Improvement of Sandy Subgrades for Flexible Pavements

2025· article· en· W4412754952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giovanni Barboza, Luis Carrión

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle sizeMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)Particle-size distributionGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite materialEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the influence of recycled PET particle size on enhancing sandy subgrades for flexible pavements.A soil classified as poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) was treated with crushed PET in proportions of 2%, 5%, and 7% to examine its impact on load-bearing capacity.Modified Proctor and CBR tests were conducted to analyze changes in the soil's mechanical properties, revealing that adding 5% PET increased the CBR Index to 15.2% at 95% MDS, an 83.1% improvement compared to natural soil.However, with a 7% PET addition, the CBR was 9.6% at 95% MDS and 15.8% at 100% MDS, showing a decrease in load-bearing capacity likely due to excessive particle interference within the soil matrix.These findings highlight that both PET dosage and particle size are critical for optimizing subgrade performance.This research provides an innovative and sustainable solution for reinforcing granular soils in pavement structures, supporting the reuse of plastic materials in civil engineering applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207