MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034565683 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0354

External sulfate attack in structural concrete made with Portland-limestone cement: an experimental study

2020· article· en· W3034565683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicola Cefis, C. Tedeschi, Claudia Comi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEttringitePortland cementSulfateScanning electron microscopeMaterials scienceComposite materialCementSwellingPorosityMortarMineralogyMetallurgyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experimental study aims to assess the effect of external sulfate attack on structural concrete made with a common Portland-limestone cement. The experimental campaign, which ran for approximately three years, was performed on standard-sized cylinders ([Formula: see text]15 cm × 30 cm) subject to different exposure conditions. The overall swelling of the specimens due to chemical reactions was monitored over time. Scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDS) observations and X-ray diffraction (XRD) tests were also carried out. Results showed the presence of secondary ettringite causing swelling and microcrack formation. The porosity increase due to sulfate attack of the outer skin of the specimens was measured. Ultrasonic measurements and compression tests on cores drilled from the cylinders immersed in different solutions allowed to confirm and quantify the consequent degradation of macroscopic elastic properties.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207