MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Coarse Aggregate on the Freeze-Thaw Durability of Pervious Concrete

2009· article· en· W2124708815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John T. Kevern, K. Wang, Vernon R. Schaefer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradationDurabilityAggregate (composite)Pervious concreteGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceYield (engineering)Materials scienceComposite materialGeologyCementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pervious concrete is becoming more common as a storm-water management tool in freeze-thaw climates. One of the main concerns or obstacles preventing a more widespread application is the aspect of freeze-thaw durability, whether perceived or actual. This paper describes a series of tests designed to determine the specific role coarse aggregate has on the freeze-thaw durability of pervious concrete using the ASTM C666A procedure. 17 different coarse aggregate samples were obtained from locations across the United States and Canada. Pervious concrete mixtures were placed using a mixture proportion previously determined as freeze-thaw durable. The range of durable aggregate gradations clearly defined a gradation specification and suggestions are made for optimizing the gradation with a small portion of sand. Mixtures with excellent freeze-thaw performance contained either granite or highly durable river gravel. The impact of aggregate angularity on mixture proportions and ultimate yield is also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations146
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207