MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326644600 · doi:10.1139/l11-011

Specifications and testing of self-consolidating mortar designated for annular space grouting

2011· article· en· W2326644600 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Soo-Duck Hwang, Kamal H. Khayat, R. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMontreal Police ServiceUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutMortarGeotechnical engineeringSlumpMaterials scienceViscosityPipeline transportComposite materialCementGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program was undertaken to evaluate the performance of self-consolidating mortar designed for filling small annular spaces for the rehabilitation of underground water line or sewage pipelines. The study also intended to establish a testing protocol to validate the workability of repair grout. All the investigated mixtures had good filling and passing ability with adequate retention of workability over 3 h. The repair mortars exhibited high stability with bleeding lower than 0.3% compared to 3% bleeding in the case of the reference neat cement grout. The reference grout had a lower plastic viscosity and higher slump flow values than the sanded repair grouts. A V-funnel with 30 mm × 30 mm overture and a flow cone with 12.7 mm overture are recommended for mortar made with concrete sand with a 5 mm nominal size and micro mortar with fine sand with a nominal size up to 3 mm, respectively.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207