MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141787739 · doi:10.5539/mas.v3n10p47

ASSESSMENT OF RECYCLED AGGREGATE CONCRETE

2009· article· en· W2141787739 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueModern Applied Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Compressive strengthCube (algebra)Materials scienceComposite materialEnvironmental scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Used of recycled aggregate (RA) in concrete can be described in environmental protection and economical terms. The application of recycled aggregate to use in construction activities have been practice by developed European countries and also of some Asian countries. This paper reports the results of an experimental study on the mechanical properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) as compared to natural aggregate concrete (NAC). The effects of size of RA on compressive strength were discussed in this paper. The 100% of RA used in concrete mix to replace the natural coarse aggregate in concrete with 100 x 100 x 100 cube mm were cast with target compressive strength is 25 MPa. The 28-day compressive strength was crushed at 3, 14, 28 days are reported. It was found the size of 10mm and 14 mm of RA in RAC is quite similar performance with 10mm and 14mm size of natural aggregate (NA) in natural aggregate concrete (NAC).Keywords: Concrete, Recycled aggregate properties, performance of recycled aggregate concrete.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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