MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187337045

CURRENT SITUATION OF SCMs IN CANADA

2003· article· en· W2187337045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. Bouzoubaâ, Benoît Fournier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilica fumeGround granulated blast-furnace slagFly ashProduction (economics)Current (fluid)Environmental scienceWaste managementBusinessEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change - Mineral and Metals - Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCMs) is a program with the objective to increase the use of SCMs in concrete production, thus contributing to the reduction of the “CO2 signature” associated with the production of every cubic metre of concrete. The first step taken by the program is the determination of the current situation of SCMs in Canada namely, production, cost, availability, and current usage and areas of high potential for expanded usage of SCMs in Canada including local barriers as well as guidelines and specifications. This exercise should then lead to an identification of a strategy to increase the use of SCMs in Canada. The data gathered on the current situation of SCMs in Canada have shown that around 524,000, 347,000, and 37,000 tonnes of fly ash, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and silica fume were used in cement and concrete applications in 2001, which represent 11, 90, and 185% of the quantity produced, respectively. For GGBFS, the remaining 10% of the quantity produced was used in the USA, and for silica fume, 17,000 tonnes were imported from the USA and Norway to meet market demand. Fly ash appears to be the only material that is underused and that represents a potential for increased use of SCMs in Canada. For the GGBFS, the quantity produced can be increased if the demand increases. However, this investigation has shown that there are policy, technical and economic barriers to the increased use of SCMs in Canada. Policy barriers: although these materials have been in the Canadian market for 20 to 30 years, and many projects, including high-profile projects such as Hibernia and the Confederation Bridge, have successfully used high volumes of fly ash and slag, there are still municipalities and provincial agencies that ban or limit the use of fly ash and slag to a certain percentage of replacement for some applications. Technical barriers: the slower setting times and strength development of concrete incorporating fly ash and slag are limiting the use of these materials in applications that need fast form-work removal. The reduced resistance of these concrete mixtures to the freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of de-icing chemicals is also considered a hurdle. The quality of the fly ash, which is related to the type of coal used for the production of electricity in the thermal power plants, is a concern in the Eastern part of the country.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207