MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2920821050 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2017-0419

Experimental investigation of pozzolanic concrete containing wheat straw ash

2019· article· en· W2920821050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Burhan Sharif, Hafiz Asad Ali, M. Hussain, Bing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPozzolanMaterials sciencePozzolanic activityMicrostructureStrawPozzolanic reactionComposite materialFlexural strengthMortarScanning electron microscopeFly ashCalcinationCompressive strengthCementChemistryPortland cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the detailed optimization of wheat straw ash (WSA) as a pozzolanic material. Characterization of WSA as pozzolanic materials was carried out according to ASTM C618 and results indicated that WSA calcined at 700 °C for 2 h fulfilled ASTM C618 requirement and results were also confirmed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of WSA samples. Effect of WSA on setting time, mechanical properties, alkali–silica reaction (ASR), hydration process, and microstructure of cement paste (CP) and concrete was studied. Compressive and flexural strength of concrete mixture containing 14% WSA was 7.5% and 19.5% more as compared to control mixture at 28 days respectively. ASR expansion of mortar prisms and hydration temperature was reduced due to WSA incorporation. XRD and scanning electron microscopy investigations of CP indicated that WSA improved the microstructure of CP and was effective in imparting the pozzolanic characteristics during hydration reaction at 7 and 28 days.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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