MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119657796 · doi:10.14359/7415

Influence of Mortar Rheology on Aggregate Settlement

2000· article· en· W2119657796 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACI Materials Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouth Carolina Department of TransportationUniversity of South CarolinaMcGill University
KeywordsRheologyMortarAggregate (composite)Settlement (finance)Materials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialGeologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of the rheology of fresh concrete on the settlement of aggregate is examined. Fresh concrete exhibits a yield stress that, under certain conditions, prevents the settlement of coarse aggregate, although its density is larger than that of the suspending mortar. Calculations, based on estimates of the yield stress obtained from slump tests, predict that aggregate normally used in concrete should not sink. To test this prediction, the settlement of a stone in fresh mortar is monitored. The stone does not sink in the undisturbed mortar (which has a high yield stress), but sinks when the mortar is vibrated, presumably due to a large reduction in its yield stress. This implies that during placement of concrete, the aggregate settles only while the concrete is being vibrated. A unique experimental method for measuring aggregate settlement is also introduced and demonstrated.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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