MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reaction Products in Carbonation-Cured Lightweight Concrete

2013· article· en· W2062196533 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
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