Influence of aggregate and supplementary cementitious materials on the properties of hydrated lime (CL90s) mortars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrated lime is a historic material currently used in conservation. It hardens slowly by carbonation slowing construction however, supplementary cementitious materials accelerate hardening enhancing strength. Hydrated-lime mortars with rice husk ash–RHA-; ground granulated blastfurnace slag–GGBS- and increasing amounts of two aggregates were studied. Increasing aggregate lowered strength as interfacial zones proliferate; it lowered hygric properties and raised water demand. Aggregate content/composition didn’t affect the high water retention. For the higher aggregate contents (90 days), limestone mortars are c.20% stronger than silica mortars while the (1:1) silica sand mortars are 56% stronger in flexion. Additions increased strength with little impact on hygric properties. GGBS increased strength c.six times. RHA increased strength with little impact on hygric properties due to its great specific surface and high water-demand increasing porosity. GGBS and RHA properties ruling hydrate production and the kinetics of the pozzolanic reaction are considered partially responsible for the mortar property variation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".