Rilem activities on alkali–silica reactions: from 1988–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1988, the International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures (Rilem) technical committees (TCs) have been seeking to establish universally applicable test methods for assessing the alkali-reactivity potential of aggregates, and from later on, for concrete mixes. TC 106, in the years 1988 to 2001 focused on accelerated aggregate tests, and presented the findings at the International Conferences on Alkali Aggregate Reactions (ICAAR) in Kyoto in 1989, London in 1992, Melbourne in 1996 and Quebec in 2000. The successor committee TC 191-ARP in the years 2001 to 2006 also included work on diagnosis/appraisal and specification, and presented the findings at the ICAAR in Beijing in 2004. TC 219-ACS in the years 2006 to 2014 introduced work on performance testing and modelling, and presented its findings at the ICAARs in Trondheim in 2008 and in Austin in 2012. The major recommendations were published as a Rilem state-of-the-art report in 2015. In 2014, the TC 258-AAA was established, and it scheduled the completion of work on performance-based assessment for 2019. The preliminary findings will be published at the ICAAR in São Paolo in 2016.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".