Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research were (a) to monitor in situ bridge deck properties such as moisture and diffusivity for both conventional concrete and concrete containing prewetted lightweight fine aggregate, which is intended to provide internal curing; (b) to compare deck performance in terms of early-age cracking; and (c) to evaluate the compressive strength and chloride permeability of concrete mixtures in the laboratory using cylinders cast in the field at the time of deck construction. The research scope included four bridges—two constructed with conventional concrete and two containing prewetted lightweight fine aggregate—in northern Utah. Data from sensors embedded in the concrete decks indicated that the moisture content of the internally cured concrete was 2% to 3% higher at 28 days than the moisture content of the conventional concrete. Although the internally cured concrete had a higher moisture content, the electrical conductivity values were approximately the same for all decks after a few months; these values suggested that the two types of concrete had similar diffusivity. At 28 days, the average strength of the internally cured concrete was 1% higher than that of the conventional concrete, and the internally cured concrete passed between 2% and 30% less current during the rapid chloride permeability test than the conventional concrete. After 2 months, three to five cracks about 0.2 to 0.3 mm in width were found on each of the conventional concrete bridge decks, but no visible signs of cracking were found in the bridge decks with internal curing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".