Options for minimising the risk of alkali–aggregate reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An alkali–aggregate reaction (AAR) is one of the many deleterious processes affecting the durability of concrete infrastructure worldwide. It is the result of reactions between the alkaline pore solution in concrete and some reactive phases in the aggregate. The reactions lead to the formation of an expansive force within the concrete, which, in certain conditions, can lead to damaging expansions and cracking in the concrete. For such damaging expansion to occur, all of the following conditions must be present simultaneously: (a) a sufficiently alkaline pore solution, (b) a critical amount of reactive material and (c) a sufficient supply of water. Effective specifications to avoid damage from the above reactions are based on ensuring that at least one of the these conditions is absent. The development of the precautions against AARs around the world generally involves the determination of the necessary level of precaution required based on the aggregate's reactivity, the size of the structural element and the environment (exposure conditions), and a classification of the ‘criticality’ of the structure to build. The development and implementation of preventive actions according to the level of precaution required are then undertaken following prescriptive or performance approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 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".