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

Rock Breakage Using Expansive Cement

2011· article· en· W2014913793 on OpenAlexaff
Amr El Dessouki, Hani S. Mitri

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.

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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207