MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022007653 · doi:10.1520/jte20180872

Factors Influencing the Pore Structure Parameters of Lightweight Cement-Based Foams

2019· article· en· W3022007653 on OpenAlexaff
Farnaz Batool, Muhammad Masood Rafi, Vivek Bindiganavile

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSilica fumeMetakaolinComposite materialCementThermal conductivityCompressive strengthPozzolanFly ashFoam concretePortland cement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study quantifies the pore wall spacing and shape factor of lightweight cement-based foam pore structure and investigates its correlation with density, pozzolan, compressive strength, and thermal conductivity. The lightweight cement-based foam mixtures were prepared for the densities of 800–400 kg/m3 and by replacing cement with fly ash, silica fume, and metakaolin up to 20 % by mass. The nondestructive technique of X-ray microtomography was used for quantifying the pore structure parameters. In addition, the transient plane heat source technique was used to evaluate the thermal conductivity of these mixtures. The results show that the optimal pore wall spacing increases from 0.28 to 0.55 mm as the density rises from 400 to 800 kg/m3. It was observed that the median pore wall spacing (SP50) values increases as the cast density get higher. While the reduction in thermal conductivity was noticed for lower SP50 values. Furthermore, incorporating pozzolanic admixtures at higher cement replacement ratios affects the pore wall spacing. Moreover, spherically shaped pores were found in all mixtures.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 venueJournal of Testing and EvaluationSame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207