Curing time and behaviour of high-performance concrete
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of its susceptibility to self-desiccation, high-performence concrete requires additional curing: generally a 7-day wet curing period is specified which is not an easy task to perform, especially in the field. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the 7 days' wet curing required by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario for all high-performance concrete structures is necessary to ensure optimum durability. Ordinary Portland cement concrete and two high-performance concretes (one with slag and one with fly ash) were tested. The concrete specimens were cast in a heated enclosure and covered with wet burlap and plastic. They were demoulded after 24 h. Thereafter, one-third of the specimens were wet cured for an additional 24 h, one-third for an additional 2 days and the final third for an additional 6 days; giving total wet curing periods of 2, 3 and 7 days respectively. After 14 days, the enclosure was dismantled and the specimens were exposed to the outdoor ambient conditions and covered with de-icing salts during the winter months. None of the data obtained over the subsequent 2 years for the internal shrinkage strain, the temperature or moisture content, shows any consistent trend with curing period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it