MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911518765 · doi:10.3390/ma12030375

Mixture Proportion Design Method of Steel Fiber Reinforced Recycled Coarse Aggregate Concrete

2019· article· en· W2911518765 on OpenAlexaff
Danying Gao, Lijuan Zhang, Michelle Nokken, Jun Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Materials scienceCementFiberComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steel fiber reinforced recycled coarse aggregate concrete (SFRCAC) is an impact minimisation building material. Mixture proportion design method of SFRCAC is developed in this paper to obtain concrete with target strength and workability, which can be used in structural members. Four key parameters of mixture proportioning, steel fiber content, water-cement ratio, water content and sand ratio are discussed through the mixture design tests. The formula for calculating the four key parameters of mixture proportions for SFRCAC are established through the statistical analysis of test results, which mainly consider the influences of recycled coarse aggregate (RCA) replacement ratio and steel fiber characteristic coefficient. The detailed procedure by using the new mixture proportion design method is illustrated with examples. The formulas established have the simple form, reflect the properties of RCA and steel fibers, enhance the mixture proportion design accuracy, and provide the reference for the mix proportion design of SFRCAC.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceFrench-language works237,207