MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reaction Characteristics of Magnesia–Spinel Refractories with Cement Clinker

2005· article· en· W2047507634 on OpenAlexaff
Zongqi Guo, Štefan Palčo, Michel Rigaud

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnesium Oxide Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinker (cement)SpinelMaterials scienceCementMetallurgyLimeMagnesiumBrickAluminateMineralogyChemical engineeringComposite materialPortland cementChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adherence ability of cement clinker on magnesia–spinel refractories is investigated, using a sandwich test, at 1550°C for 30 min under a load of 5.3 kPa. Fractional factorial experiments determine that the silica ratio (SR)—SiO 2 /(Al 2 O 3 +Fe 2 O 3 ) and particle size of raw meal, as well as heating rate, have a significant effect on adherence ability. Microstructural analyses indicate that the adherence ability depends upon reactions between clinker and refractories at high temperature. Only spinel reacts with CaO and 3CaO·SiO 2 from clinker to form n ‐calcium aluminate (such as 3CaO·Al 2 O 3 , 12CaO·7Al 2 O 3 , CaO·Al 2 O 3 ), but there is no reaction between MgO and the clinker. Fine crystalline spinel, evenly distributed in magnesia‐based brick, is prone to reacting with lime‐containing phases from clinker to form low melting phases and a belite‐enriched zone at the clinker/brick interface. This reaction positively contributes to the high adherence on a magnesia−spinel brick. The high content of liquid in clinker with low SR accelerates reactions between spinel and clinker, while a limited reaction occurs at the brick/clinker interface with high silica.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Ceramic TechnologySame topicMagnesium Oxide Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207