MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of external sulfate attack (Na2SO4 and MgSO4): Portland cement mortars containing fillers

2020· article· en· W3043685275 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego Jesus De Souza, Marcelo Henrique Farias de Medeiros, Juarez Hoppe Filho

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversidade Federal do ParanáNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa
KeywordsPortland cementSulfateMortarCementFiller (materials)Materials scienceQuartzFlexural strengthComposite materialCompressive strengthMagnesiumMineralogyMetallurgyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sulfate attack is a term used to describe a series of chemical reactions between sulfate ions and hydrated compounds of the hardened cement paste. The present study aims to evaluate the physical (linear expansion, flexural and compressive strength) and mineralogical properties (X-ray diffraction) of three different mortar compositions (Portland Cement CPV-ARI with limestone filler and, with a quartz filler, in both cases with 10% replacement of the cement by weight) against sodium and magnesium sulfate attack (concentration of SO4 2- equal to 0.7 molar). The data collected indicate that the replacing the cement by the two fillers generate different results, the quartz filler presented a mitigating behaviour towards the sulfate, and the limestone filler was harmful to Portland cement mortars, in both physical and chemical characteristics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista IBRACON de Estruturas e MateriaisSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207