MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021773664 · doi:10.1680/adcr.2007.19.2.57

Influence of mineralogy of Tunisian clays on pozzolanic activity—assessment by different methods

2007· article· en· W2021773664 on OpenAlexaff
B. Samet, Ahlem Chakchouk, Thameur Mnif, Arezki Tagnit‐Hamou

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Cement Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicClay minerals and soil interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPozzolanic activityPozzolanCalcinationKaolinitePozzolanic reactionMaterials scienceLimeDifferential thermal analysisThermogravimetryMetakaolinMineralogyCompressive strengthCementChemistryMetallurgyComposite materialPortland cementDiffractionInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five local clays were characterised by several physicochemical methods to predict their pozzolanic reactivity. The studied samples were treated thermally at 600, 700 and 800°C. The heat-treated samples were characterised by X-ray diffraction. The pozzolanic activity was assessed by chemical (Chappelle test), mechanical (compressive strength at 28 days) and physical (differential thermal analysis/thermogravimetry) methods. It was found that under the chosen conditions, the kaolinitic clay fraction was transformed to an amorphous phase that was reactive with lime, whereas the illitic phase remained in a crystalline form and was consequently unable to produce pozzolans. The montmorillonitic fraction started to gain pozzolanic activity above a calcination temperature of 700°C. It was also demonstrated that the pozzolanic activity of the clays calcined at 700°C was directly related to the percentage of kaolinite in the crude samples. The hydration products were C–S–H and C 4 AH 13 , and C 3 AH 6 and C 2 ASH 8 were also detected in samples that were rich in alumina.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.468 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Cement ResearchSame topicClay minerals and soil interactionsFrench-language works237,207