MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950490108 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13569

An experimental study on the effects of casein protein in unreinforced lime mortar specimens

2019· dissertation· en· W2950490108 on OpenAlexaff
Kristian Falkjar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortarMasonryCaseinLimeBond strengthCompressive strengthMaterials scienceComposite materialReduction (mathematics)Geotechnical engineeringChemistryStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringMathematicsFood scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Casein, an organic milk protein, existed in masonry mortars from medieval times until the 18 th century. It was understood to improve workability of the mortar. Recent mortar conservation projects have proposed its use, however, little information is existent on its effects on strength, a critical property in repair of masonry mortars. Adding 0.25% casein by mass was insufficient to improve flow properties of mortar. It was found that adding 0.5% casein by mass resulted in a flowable mortar, however, a 75% reduction in strength resulted, while bond strength increased, after 56 days. Reducing the water by 18% resulted in a 50% reduction in strength from that observed in the control sample, while maintaining flowable properties. Reducing the water more than 27% yielded a rapidsetting, non-flowable mortar. The addition of casein is a plausible alternative for repointing existing mortar joints. It has favourable flow properties, as well as improved bond strength.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207