MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Restrained Shrinkage Cracking of Self-Consolidating Concrete

2014· article· en· W2090701614 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Properties and Behavior
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageMaterials scienceComposite materialCrackingUltimate tensile strengthCompressive strengthFly ashWater reducerCementCreepSlag (welding)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the properties of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) used for repair applications and prepared with two commercially available ternary blended cements and chemical admixtures such as a high-range water reducer (HRWR) and a viscosity modifying admixture (VMA) were investigated under restrained shrinkage. The examined properties include compressive strength, indirect tensile strength, static elastic modulus, free shrinkage, and restrained shrinkage. From the results, it became clear that the resistance of SCC to shrinkage crack was quite different depending on the nature of HRWR and the binder type in use. The cracking age increases in mixtures proportioned with polycarboxylate (PC)-based HRWR compared with polynaphthalene (PNS)-based HRWR. The SCC mixtures based on blended ternary cement containing Class F fly ash show shorter cracking age than the corresponding SCCs proportioned with ternary blended cement containing slag. Finally, it was found that the potential of shrinkage cracking of SCC is not influenced only by the amount of shrinkage but also by the shrinkage rate and tensile creep.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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