MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010213948 · doi:10.1139/l09-103

Microstructure of red brick dust and ground basaltic pumice blended cement mortars exposed to magnesium sulphate solutions

2009· article· en· W2010213948 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hanifi Binici, Joselito Arocena, Selım Kapur, Orhan Aksoğan, Hasan Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostructureCementPumiceMortarBrickCompressive strengthMaterials sciencePortland cementMagnesiumComposite materialScanning electron microscopeMetallurgyMineralogyGeologyVolcanoGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a laboratory study on the deterioration of blended cement combinations of plain Portland cement (PPC) with red brick dust (RBD) and ground basaltic pumice (GBP). The compressive strength and the magnesium sulphate resistance of cements have been experimentally determined. The development of the microstructure and the secondary minerals in the plain and blended cements were studied via scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. A series of mechanical tests of cement mortars were undertaken on all specimens. A large quantity of sheet-like C-S-H was found in the mortars that have developed by the addition of RBD and GBP. The results indicated that the increase in the additive content caused a significant increase in the sulphate resistance of the mortars. Hence, the studied RBD and GBP can be recommended for use as admixtures in cement production.

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 score0.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207