Quantitative Rietveld analysis of hydrated cementitious systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study examining the feasibility, and possible necessity, of using transmission data from capillary mounted samples for quantitative analysis of hydrated cement systems was conducted. In order to obtain true quantitative results, the amorphous contents were determined by the addition of an internal standard. The amorphous content of the starting tricalcium silicate was found to be approximately 21–22 wt %, in close agreement with previously published results. The study revealed that the spherical harmonics preferential orientation correction may not be reliable with unmicronized hydrated cement materials in reflection geometry, as chemically unreasonable progressions in Portlandite content with time were observed. The data obtained from capillary measurements, however, exhibited little or no preferential orientation, and appeared to produce the progression of phase contents expected from the reaction. The use of capillaries would appear to be justified in some circumstances to obtain reliable quantitative results from hydrated cementitious materials. In this particular system, a significant fraction of calcium carbonate was present as aragonite, as well as the more usual calcite.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".