MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2572810111 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2016-0317

Shear strength of interfaces in natural and in recycled aggregate concrete

2017· article· en· W2572810111 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shakeel Ahmad Waseem, Bhupinder Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrussMaterials scienceShear (geology)Structural engineeringAggregate (composite)Shear strength (soil)Composite materialClampingUltimate tensile strengthStrength of materialsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shear strength of interfaces in natural aggregate concrete and in recycled aggregate concrete has been investigated using initially uncracked push-off specimens by varying the following parameters: replacement level of the recycled aggregates (0%, 50%, and 100%), concrete grade (normal-strength and medium-strength), and clamping force on the shear plane. Development of truss action for resisting interface shear was indicated by the observed crack patterns in the tested specimens and a truss-based analysis recommended in the literature in combination with a simplified failure envelope for concrete subjected to biaxial stresses has been used for shear strength predictions of the tested specimens. The proposed methodology, which is considered to be more rational than the empirical shear strength models available in the literature was calibrated for both the concrete types and gave conservative and reasonably accurate shear strength predictions for selected experiments taken from the literature.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207