MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reaction Products in Carbonation-Cured Lightweight Concrete

2013· article· en· W2062196533 on OpenAlexaff
Hilal El-Hassan, Yixin Shao, Zaid Ghouleh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonationCalcium hydroxideCuring (chemistry)MicrostructureCalcium silicate hydrateCarbonatationMaterials sciencePortlanditeCalcium silicateScanning electron microscopeCementAnhydrousEttringiteComposite materialChemical engineeringPortland cementChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of early-age carbonation curing on the microstructure and properties of lightweight concrete with expanded slag aggregates was examined. Carbonation was performed on concretes either immediately after casting or after 18-h air curing. Their corresponding carbon uptake was 8 and 23%, respectively, based on cement content. A process involving initial air curing, carbonation curing, water compensation, and subsequent hydration was developed to maximize the degree of carbonation and hydration. Reaction products of carbonation-cured concretes at early and late age were characterized by using thermogravimetrical (TG) analysis, X-ray diffraction analysis, and scanning electron microscopy. Although the presence of calcium carbonates was evident, the microstructure was nevertheless typical of amorphous. It was believed that early carbonation of concrete consumed calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate hydrates, and anhydrous calcium silicates while producing calcium carbonates of different polymorphs and amorphous calcium silicate hydrocarbonates.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations89
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207