Assessing the Carbonation Behavior of Cementitious Materials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The carbonation behavior of six cementitious materials was examined (CSA Type 10 cement, CSA Type 30 cement, fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace (GGBF) slag, electric arc furnace (EAF) slag, and hydrated lime) for applicability to CO2 sequestration applications. No-slump press-formed compacts and loose powders were subjected to 100% CO2 at a constant pressure of 5bar for 2h. The CO2 contents of the as-received and the carbonated materials were measured. It was found that the cements, fly ash, and electric arc furnace slag could each show CO2 uptake on the order of 12%, while the lime achieved nearly 40%. The blast furnace slag managed 7% uptake. The carbon uptakes achieved were significantly lower than the theoretical maximum as determined by chemistry. The 2h carbonation produced high early age strength in cements and hydrated lime, which can be used as structural materials. The strength gain in fly ash, EAF slag, and GGBF slag was nevertheless not sufficient. X-ray diffraction analysis determined that the primary carbonation product formed was calcite, while C3S, C2S, and Ca(OH)2 were the phases consumed. Scanning electron microscopy observations considered the morphology of the carbonation products and the degree of reaction in terms of microstructure characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it