MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2787044583 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2016-0343

Concrete in Canada: 50 years of progress — present concerns

2018· article· en· W2787044583 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pierre-Claude Aı̈tcin, William Wilson, Sidney Mindess

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilica fumeSuperplasticizerTowerCivil engineeringMaterials scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringCompressive strengthComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 50 years, concrete in Canada has evolved from a simple robust material to a complex composite with impressive improvements in the material properties. Due to the development of water reducers and silica fume, the performance of concrete has improved from the conventional 30 MPa concrete before the CN Tower (1973) to the ultra-high strength 200 MPa concrete used in the Passerelle de Sherbrooke (1998). This paper retraces this evolution of concrete with a focus on both the technical improvements and the important structures built with these technologies. Recent progress in blended cements and poly-carboxylate ether superplasticizers is also presented, along with the concerns and current challenges to ensure an optimized and safe use of these new concrete admixtures.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicConcrete and Cement Materials Research→French-language works237,207→