MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025587825 · doi:10.1139/l99-064

Alkali-aggregate reactivity in Nova Scotia

2000· article· en· W2025587825 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
W. S. Langley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaFly ashAggregate (composite)Alkali–silica reactionPozzolanReactivity (psychology)MortarAlkali–aggregate reactionAlkali metalGeologyCementMineralogyEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringMetallurgyChemistryComposite materialPortland cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alkali-silica reactivity, a reaction between alkalies usually contained in the cement paste and siliceous aggregates, was positively identified in Nova Scotia in 1962. Powerhouse structures on the Mersey River constructed in 1928-1929 showed intolerable expansion by 1938, and this expansion continues to the present day. Extensive research conducted in the 1960s and 1980s has shown that widespread meta-sediments in Nova Scotia are the principal rock types responsible for the reaction. The rate and extent of reactivity is somewhat dependent on the degree to which the rock has been re-crystallized as a result of contact with intrusive granites. Supplementary cementing materials are effective in reducing or eliminating the excessive expansions caused by the reaction. Class F fly ash has been in general use in Nova Scotia since 1986 and used specifically for reducing alkali-aggregate reactivity since 1990.Key words: alkali-aggregate reaction, expansion, fly ash, meta-sediments, mortar bar test, pozzolans, prism test, quarries, supplementary cementing materials.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207