MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014913793 · doi:10.4236/eng.2011.32020

Rock Breakage Using Expansive Cement

2011· article· en· W2014913793 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageExpansiveCementPortland cementSulfateBreakageMaterials scienceCuring (chemistry)Geotechnical engineeringComposite materialForensic engineeringGeologyMetallurgyEngineeringCompressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expansive cements are powdery materials which produce expansive stresses during the moist curing process. These cements are classified as shrinkage-compensated or self-stressing cements. The shrinkage compensated is used in the construction industry and will not be investigated in this paper. Self-Stressing cement is widely used in the demolition & fragmentation industry and will be the main focus of this report. The objective of this paper is to discuss the relationship between Sulfate-compounds on the expansion time and degree of expansion of Betonamit expansive cement. Based on literature [1], expansion time is directly proportional to sulfate content when mixed with Portland cement. Hence, as the sulfate content of the cement mixture increases, expansion time increases. However, in this research project the effect of Portland cement was removed to further examine the effect of sulfate on Betonamit only. This phenomenon was investigated using various concentrations of 4 different Sulfate-compounds. The results proved the possibility of decreasing the expansion time of Betonamit and, quite remarkably, a much greater degree of expansion was obtained.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.189 · 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