MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bonding of Cement Clinker onto Doloma‐Based Refractories

2005· article· en· W2017645743 on OpenAlexaff
Zongqi Guo, Štefan Palčo, Michel Rigaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Ceramic Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinker (cement)Materials scienceCementLimeMetallurgyParticle sizeRaw materialComposite materialChemical engineeringChemistryPortland cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adherence ability of cement clinker on doloma refractories was investigated using a specially designed sandwich test conducted at 1550°C for 30 min, under a load of 5.3 kPa. Fractional factorial experiments determined that silica ratio, particle size, and alumina ratio of raw meal had significant effects on the reactions between the clinker and the refractory. Silica ratio was found to be the most prominent factor influencing the adherence strength of the clinker on the surface of doloma bricks. Doloma refractory, having an excess of free lime, reacts with clinker to form additional C 3 S at the interface, which is greatly beneficial to adherence strength. The interface of doloma/clinker with low silica ratio is covered with a continuous MgO‐enriched layer, which is formed from the CaO reacting with the raw meal in presence of a large amount of liquid phase generated in the clinker. This layer reduced the adherence strength of clinker on doloma. With high silica‐ratio raw meal, clinker and doloma form a C 3 S‐rich layer at the interface, improving strongly the adherence strength of clinker on the brick.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Ceramic SocietySame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207