Analisis Kemampuan Pasir Dari Pantai Nirwana Kota Padang Dan Pasir Dari Pantai Kawasan Mandeh Pesisir Selatan Sebagai Pengganti Pasir Ottawa Dalam Pengujian Sandcone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ottawa sand has long been used as a standard material in geotechnical laboratory tests, particularly in grain size distribution and Sand Cone tests, due to its uniform particle size, purity, and stable physical properties. This study explores the potential of using beach sand from Nirwana and Mandeh as substitutes for Ottawa sand. The research process began with problem identification, followed by a literature review, sample collection, laboratory testing, and data analysis. The results show that the specific gravity of Nirwana sand (2.77) and Mandeh sand (2.72) are relatively close to Ottawa sand (±2.65). In terms of the coefficient of uniformity (Cu), Nirwana sand (2.34) is closer to Ottawa sand (2.17) compared to Mandeh sand (2.94). Regarding the coefficient of curvature (Cc), Nirwana sand (0.72) performs better than Mandeh sand (0.66), although both remain below the ideal range (1–3). Overall, Nirwana sand demonstrates greater potential as an alternative to Ottawa sand, with improvements in gradation recommended to achieve optimal performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".