MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000203231 · doi:10.1680/adcr.2010.22.4.203

Use of pore solution analysis in design for concrete durability

2010· article· en· W2000203231 on OpenAlexaff
R.D. Hooton, M D Thomas, T Ramlochan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Cement Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityEttringiteCementMaterials scienceIonic bondingCorrosionAlkali–silica reactionAlkali–aggregate reactionAlkali metalChlorideComposite materialChemical engineeringPortland cementChemistryMetallurgyIonEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pore solution analysis of hardened cement-based materials has been in increasing use over the last 30 years to determine the ionic composition of the pore fluid at various ages and after exposure to various temperature regimes. In addition, it has been used to evaluate the potential for results of chemical interaction with external solutions or with other concrete materials (such as alkali-reactive aggregates). Once related to physical durability test data, knowledge of the pore solution composition in combination with the nature of the solid phases present can be used to predict the potential for future durability-related chemical interactions. This paper discusses three areas where the usefulness of pore solution analysis has been instrumental in increasing the understanding of concrete durability issues related to: (a) alkali binding as it affects alkali–silica reaction (ASR), (b) chloride-binding as it affects reinforcement corrosion resistance, and (c) delayed ettringite formation (DEF).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Cement ResearchSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207