MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333006282 · doi:10.1080/21650373.2015.1124812

Effects of curing regimes on the mechanical properties and durability of polymer-modified mortars – an experimental investigation

2016· article· en· W2333006282 on OpenAlexafffund
Anant Parghı, M. Shahria Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Cement-Based Materials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsSorptivityAbsorption of waterCuring (chemistry)Materials scienceComposite materialDurabilityMortarFlexural strengthPolymerCompressive strengthWaterproofingToughness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research investigates the polymer/cement (P/C) ratios (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20%) on mechanical and durability properties of modified mortar exposed to different curing conditions. These properties include compressive and flexural strengths, flow spread test, water absorption, density, coefficient of water absorption, sorptivity, and salt/sulfate resistance tests. The results show that combining seven days of water submergence and 21 days of ambient temperature curing (7W21D) along with 15% polymer content is more helpful to improve the mortar properties compared to other mix proportions and curing conditions. Interestingly, the same combination resulted in a better performance in terms of water absorption, the coefficient of water absorption, sorptivity, toughness and salt/sulfate resistance as compared to polymer-modified mortars (PMMs) containing 0, 5, 10, and 20% polymer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Cement-Based MaterialsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207