MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582690838 · doi:10.3989/mc.2017.09315

The use of a volcanic material as filler in self-compacting concrete production for lower strength applications

2017· article· en· W2582690838 on OpenAlexaff
Diana M. Burgos, Álvaro Guzmán, Khandaker M. Anwar Hossain, Silvio Delvasto

Bibliographic record

VenueMateriales de Construcción · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersUniversidad del ValleDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsCompressive strengthMaterials scienceCuring (chemistry)Composite materialCementitiousPortland cementSlumpFiller (materials)Cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the use of large amounts of fine powders (fillers) derived from a Colombian volcanic material into the production of self-compacting concrete (SCC) for lower strength applications. The effects on SCC properties were studied with the incorporation of up to 50% of volcanic material of Tolima (MVT) as a partial substitute of the total weight of Portland cement. The workability was determined through slump flow, V-funnel, and L-box test. The compressive strength results were analyzed statistically by MINITAB. These demonstrated that 30% (by total weight of cementitious material) was the maximum allowable percentage of MVT to be used in the production of SCCs. Based on this, mechanical and permeability properties of SCC MVT 30% were evaluated at 28, 90 y 360 curing days. SCC MVT 30% exhibited compressive strength of 21 and 27 MPa after 28 and 360 days of curing, 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMateriales de ConstrucciónSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207