Characterization tools for shrinkage-compensating repair materials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achievement of dimensional compatibility is one of the most important considerations in order to consistently achieve lasting repair works that do not undergo harmful cracking. Drying shrinkage of Portland cement concrete is generally inevitable and, although its magnitude can be reduced by optimizing or modifying the composition parameters, it remains significantly larger than its ultimate tensile strain. Conversely, the use of shrinkage-compensating concrete ( ShCC ) may allow to achieve a zero-dimensional balance with respect to drying shrinkage, through the use of a mineral expansive agent. The experimental work carried out in recent years at Laval University to evaluate the potential of shrinkage-compensating concretes ( ShCC ) for use as repair materials has in fact yielded quite promising results. Nevertheless, more research is required to turn ShCC systems into a truly dependable and versatile repair option. Among the issues still unresolved, suitable tests methods must be developed, not only to better characterize ShCC , but also to guide the specifications and perform field quality control. Efforts have thus been devoted to adapt or develop test procedures intended to better capture the particular volume change behavior of ShCC ’s. The paper presents two test procedures intended to assess the shrinkage-compensating potential and the effective strain balance of ShCC in restrained conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 it