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 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

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
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