MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016546279 · doi:10.1680/adcr.12.00042

Solvent exchange in sulphoaluminate phases. Part I: ettringite

2013· article· en· W2016546279 on OpenAlexaff
Rahil Khoshnazar, J.J. Beaudoin, Laïla Raki, Rouhollah Alizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Cement Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsGiatec Scientific (Canada)National Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEttringiteGravimetric analysisThermogravimetric analysisMicrostructureSolventScanning electron microscopeChemistryMaterials scienceChemical engineeringMineralogyOrganic chemistryComposite materialCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The change in the microstructure of ettringite and concomitant changes in volume due to the application of organic solvent exchange methods were investigated. Ettringite samples conditioned to 11% relative humidity were treated with methanol, ethanol and iso-propanol, and were examined using different analytical techniques (x-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, thermal gravimetric analysis, scanning electron microscopy and nitrogen BET surface area measurement) to explore the limitations of using these organic solvents in the study of ettringite microstructure. The results suggest that methanol interacts with ettringite and therefore is not recommended for characterisation of this sulphoaluminate phase. Ethanol and iso-propanol did not significantly change the crystalline structure of ettringite, but did result in a higher surface area of the treated sample compared with the surface area of the untreated one. The length-change of ettringite in these alcohols was also determined and the results are presented.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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