MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912861478 · doi:10.1680/jmacr.18.00307

Construction and demolition waste in geopolymer concrete technology: a review

2019· review· en· W2912861478 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 · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopolymerDemolitionCementitiousDemolition wasteGeopolymer cementBrickConstruction industryConstruction engineeringFly ashCivil engineeringCementWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geopolymers are a relatively new generation of construction materials developed with industrial by-products and supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) with high silica and alumina contents. In recent years, the demand for SCMs has increased significantly due to action plans on global climate change. In addition, construction and demolition wastes (CDWs) are a major concern in the construction sector and using them through the geopolymerisation process has therefore attracted the attention of researchers worldwide. This paper summarises the literature pertaining to the use of CDWs such as concrete, brick and ceramic as source materials in geopolymer technology, either alone or with SCMs. The literature indicates that CDW materials work well as the main source materials in geopolymer technology. However, due to the various parameters in geopolymerisation, research should move toward defining threshold levels and acceptable criteria rather than simply the best composition outcomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.301 · 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