MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046289201 · doi:10.2478/bpasts-2013-0006

A surface engineering approach applicable to concrete repair engineering

2013· article· en· W2046289201 on OpenAlexaff
Andrzej Garbacz, Luc Courard, B. Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersWallonie-Bruxelles InternationalMinisterstwo Edukacji i NaukiPolitechnika WarszawskaEuropean Commission
KeywordsCrackingDurabilityMaterials scienceSurface finishStructural engineeringSurface roughnessSubstrate (aquarium)Construction engineeringComputer scienceComposite materialEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of the paper is to analyze the effect of substrate roughness and superficial microcraking upon adhesion of repair systems using concrete surface engineering approach. The results presented in this paper have been obtained within the framework of research projects performed to develop a better understanding of the factors affecting the adhesion of repair materials through a surface engineering approach. Based on the results of investigations, the authors showed that the durability and quality of concrete repairs depend to a large degree on the characteristics of the substrate. Mechanical preparation and profiling of the concrete surface to be repaired has to be balanced with potential co-lateral effects such as superficial cracking, too often induced as a result of inappropriate concrete removal method selection, and the loss of benefits due to better mechanical anchorage. The results obtained confirm also that Concrete Surface Engineering, as a scientific concept, will definitely contribute to shed more light on how to optimize repair bond, taking into account interactions between the materials at different observation scales

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations64
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical SciencesSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207