MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986163121 · doi:10.3141/1866-08

Relative Effects of Sodium Chloride and Magnesium Chloride on Reinforced Concrete: State of the Art

2004· article· en· W1986163121 on OpenAlexaff
Brent T. Mussato, Oliver K. Gepraegs, Gary Farnden

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorideChristian ministryDiffusionSodiumMagnesiumEnvironmental scienceChemistryMaterials scienceEnvironmental chemistryMetallurgyPolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnesium chloride (MgCl 2 ) use for snow and ice control is becoming a well-established practice but has been limited to the past 10 years. Impacts associated with sodium chloride (NaCl) use are well documented, but concerns have been raised regarding the potential effects of MgCl 2 use on concrete and steel reinforcement. The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation intended to establish guidelines for MgCl 2 use by highway maintenance contractors. Information was gathered from available literature and interviews with academia and industry. Generally, few studies directly and comprehensively address the topic, and although significant research efforts are currently under way, results are not expected for several years. Past laboratory studies suggest that MgCl 2 reacts with cement paste to reduce concrete strength and degrade concrete. Studies also suggest that chloride ions associated with MgCl 2 have higher diffusion coefficients than those associated with NaCl. Field studies are limited, but laboratory coefficients for chloride ion diffusion correlate with results of a field study conducted in Montana. Higher chloride diffusion coefficients can reduce the initiation time for chloride-induced corrosion of reinforcing steel. No evidence to date directly links the increased deterioration of a structure to MgCl 2 use; however, the history of use is short, and caution is recommended until additional studies can establish more evidence.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207