MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035104103 · doi:10.1520/jte20190887

Study on the Influence of Different Aqueous Solutions on the Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Limestone

2020· article· en· W3035104103 on OpenAlexaff
Huayan Yao, Denghui Ma, Jun Xiong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostructureAqueous solutionMaterials scienceComposite materialMetallurgyChemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Uniaxial and triaxial compression tests were carried out on limestone samples immersed in distilled water and pH = 2 solution for 80 days to investigate the influences of aqueous solutions on the mechanical properties of limestone. Scanning electron microscopy and image recognition techniques were employed to analyze the morphology of limestone before and after immersion in aqueous solutions. The test results show that the peak stress and elastic modulus of the limestone specimens were reduced while the Poisson’s ratios were increased after 80 days of soaking. A series of chemical reactions take place between water and rock samples during the process of soaking. Energy-dispersive spectrometer analysis results showed that the content of calcium in the surface of the sample decreases after soaking, while the contents of aluminum, magnesium, and silicon are increased. From the image analysis results, it is demonstrated that the number and area of microscopic pores of the sample after immersion increased. The physical-chemical actions between the aqueous solutions and the samples lead to the deterioration of the mechanical properties of the rock.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.136 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Testing and EvaluationSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207