MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981825870 · doi:10.1139/l08-015

Production and engineering application of C60 high-performance pump pebble concrete containing ultra-fine fly ash

2008· article· en· W1981825870 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ying Gao, Bao Guo, Shi Qiong Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFly ashSlumpShrinkagePebbleMaterials scienceCementSuperplasticizerCompressive strengthDurabilityEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialWaste managementEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C60 grade high-performance pump concrete incorporating river pebbles and ultra-fine fly ash (UFA) was successfully prepared, with UFA replacing 30% of the cement, for the second-stage of construction of the Hunan Xiangtan Power Plant. Some of the properties of this pump concrete were studied using both laboratory and on-site testing. The results indicated that workability of UFA concrete was excellent. The initial slump surpassed 180 mm, and the slump loss was small. The 28 d strength of the concrete met the engineering requirement of conforming to C60 strength grade. It is shown that the resistance–chloride ion penetration of UFA pump concrete is better than that of ordinary concrete in terms of Association for Testing and Materials test method C1202-94. Dry shrinkage of concrete slightly reduced with the addition of UFA, and UFA concrete shows better crack resistance compared with ordinary concrete. The production technology of UFA pump pebble concrete is summarized based on test and 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207