MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044207618 · doi:10.1080/21650373.2020.1793820

Statistical modeling of mechanical and transport properties of concrete incorporating glass powder

2020· article· en· W3044207618 on OpenAlexaff
Aly Hussein Abdalla, Ammar Yahia, Arezki Tagnit‐Hamou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Cement-Based Materials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthCementitiousMaterials scienceCementComposite materialPermeability (electromagnetism)Properties of concreteChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study is to model the effect of the partial replacement of cement by glass powder (GP), w/cm, and supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) content, as well as their coupled effects on key engineering properties of concrete using a statistical design of experiments. The modeled experimental domain includes concrete mixtures with w/cm ranging between 0.27 and 0.69, GP percentages of 0–50%, and SCM content of 310 to 440 kg/m3. The modeled responses include the compressive strength and rapid chloride ions permeability (CIP) at various ages. The comparison between predicted and measured responses determined on eight selected mixtures included in the experimental domain indicates good accuracy of the established models to describe the effect of the independent variables on the targeted properties. The derived statistical models indicate that the CIP is dominated by substitution percentage of GP, while the compressive strength is dominated by w/cm, regardless of the age of concrete. The increase in GP content to 30% resulted in a significant reduction in CIP. However, it reduces the compressive strength at early age, which may necessitate a decrease in w/cm to compensate for strength reduction. Trade-off between mixture parameters to achieve targeted compressive strength and CIP properties were established.

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 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Cement-Based MaterialsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207