MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065148098 · doi:10.1139/l05-041

Study of the effect of alkalis on the slag cement systems

2005· article· en· W2065148098 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leila Zeghichi, Bouzidi Mezghiche, Rachid Chebili

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthCementGround granulated blast-furnace slagMaterials scienceCuring (chemistry)Slag (welding)Hardening (computing)Waste managementMetallurgyClinker (cement)Composite materialPortland cementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The replacement of natural materials by industrial by-products has given a variety of new construction materials that are economically viable and ecologically beneficial. Blast furnace slag is one of these industrial by-products. Its beneficial proprieties and characteristics have led to rapid growth of production in Algeria and worldwide. This research deals with the effect of alkaline activation of slag cement with clinker. Various agents that activate the process were used for testing, and it showed that compressive strength at 28 d, which reached 150% with respect to compressive strength obtained from slag cement at different percentages of slag (50%–80%), increased considerably. Alkaline activators accelerate hydration and stimulate the hardening process. The results also show the efficacy of steam cured treatment on the compressive strength.Key words: slag cement, activation agent, hydration, hardening, steam 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 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 score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207