Glass frit for concrete structures: a new, alternative cementitious material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With today's requirements for high-performance concrete, mix proportions containing cementitious materials as partial replacement of, or in addition to, Portland cement, are being used more frequently. The most commonly used cementitious materials nowadays are fly ash, silica fume, and ground, granulated blast-furnace slag. However, alternative supplementary cementitious materials can successfully be used as long as they meet the acceptance criteria stated in various specifications. This paper provides data on properties of structural concrete containing glass frit. The performance of this type of concrete is highlighted by its rheological and mechanical behaviour, as well as its durability. Later-age compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strengths are well above estimated values, and in many cases, are higher than those obtained with the control concrete. Durability aspects and characteristics expressed by drying shrinkage, surface scaling, and chloride-ion permeability have shown that concrete incorporating glass frit has a very good potential for long-term resistance.Key words: glass frit, cementitious material, workability, mechanical properties, durability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".