MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032684950 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v1n2p193

Performance and Microanalysis of Cement Asphalt Mortar With Admixture of Coal Fly Ash

2012· article· en· W2032684950 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterials Engineering and Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementMaterials sciencePortland cementCementitiousFly ashMortarAsphaltComposite materialMicrostructureMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, cement asphalt mortars prepared with three different cementitious material were systematically investigated: C1 ordinary Portland cement, C2sulfoaluminate cement, C3 (sulfoaluminate: ordinary Portland cement: fly ash=3:6:1) according to the technical indices of cement asphalt mortar for Chinese high speed railway (CRTS II). The C2 CA mortar shows early strength due to the early hydration process between the sulfoaluminate cement and water while the workability is not as excellent as C3 group which not only shows great performance in physical and mechanical properties but also has a good fluidity and workable time to meet the requirement of CRTS II. Through the microstructure analysis, it was found that cement asphalt mortar is a porous structure and the hydration between cement and free water happened at the early age while an integrated formed amorphous gel play an important role in the strength development of the CA mortar as the strength development to 28 days.

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 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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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