MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084424985 · doi:10.1680/adcr.11.00010

Effect of <i>n</i>-CaCO<sub>3</sub> and metakaolin on hydrated Portland cement

2012· article· en· W2084424985 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Makar, J.J. Beaudoin, Ken Trischuk, Gordon Chan, Faroan Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Cement Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersKentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsMetakaolinPortland cementMaterials scienceThermogravimetric analysisEttringiteTernary operationChemical engineeringCementIsothermal processNanoparticlePortlanditeComposite materialNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of calcium carbonate nanoparticles (nCaCO 3 ) on the hydration of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) blended with metakaolin was studied through comparison with OPC, OPC plus metakaolin and OPC plus nCaCO 3 control samples. Isothermal conduction calorimetry measurements showed that the hydration of the ternary OPC–metakaolin–nCaCO 3 blend had pronounced early secondary phase hydration activity compared to the controls. X-ray diffraction and thermogravimetric analysis identified the phases as calcium aluminosulfates, with both ettringite and monosulfate forming more quickly in the ternary blend than in the other samples. The presence of the nCaCO 3 also enhanced the formation of C 3 A·CaCO 3 ·12H 2 O in both blends that contained it. The presence of the secondary phases or the nCaCO 3 itself was associated with a significant reduction in strength in the ternary blend as compared to the OPC–metakaolin binary blend. The results suggest that caution is needed in the development of concrete with nanoparticle additions in order to avoid detrimental combinations of nanoparticles, OPC and supplementary cementing materials.

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 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)0.003
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Cement ResearchSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207