MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611925178 · doi:10.1680/jmacr.16.00406

Exploring effects of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete exposed to physical salt attack

2017· article· en· W2611925178 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMagazine of Concrete Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetakaolinDurabilitySilica fumeCementitiousFly ashSulfateAlkali–silica reactionSalt (chemistry)Forensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialAggregate (composite)EngineeringCementMetallurgyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been well established that supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) can significantly enhance the resistance of concrete to chemical sulfate attack. However, the effect of SCMs on the durability of concrete exposed to physical salt attack is still controversial. To date, there have been only limited studies that have investigated this concrete durability issue. Therefore, the present study investigates the effects of using different types of SCMs, including silica fume, fly ash and metakaolin, in concrete subjected to environments prone to physical salt attack. Results indicate that the damage of concrete escalates as the addition level of SCMs increases. An attempt is made to delineate this problem and explain the mechanisms controlling this behaviour, which could have implications for existing design codes. The findings call for caution when SCMs are specified for concrete subjected to environments conducive to physical sulfate attack.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.183 · 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