Alkali–aggregate reaction: performance testing, exposure sites and regulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several laboratory performance tests for alkali–aggregate reaction (AAR) have been used worldwide for about 20 years. However, a review performed one of the present authors in 2006 concluded that none of the test methods meets all the criteria for an ideal performance test. In the last decade, research has been performed in several countries with the aim to improve current AAR performance test methods and develop alternative tests. The Rilem (The International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures) Technical Committee (TC) 258-AAA (2014–2019) is also focusing on this topic. The main purpose of this technical committee is to develop and promote a reliable performance-based testing concept for the prevention of deleterious AAR. Strong emphasis will be placed on the implementation of the Rilem methods and recommendations as national and international standards. It is crucial to link the results from the accelerated laboratory testing to field behaviour, primarily against field exposure sites. Some results from such exposure sites are included in this paper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".