Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Important differentiating attributes in the procedures used, the characteristic mineral composition of the binders, and the implications these have on the final long term stability and physico-mechanical performance of the concretes produced are identified and discussed, with the intent to improve transparency and clarity in the field of geopolymer concrete technologies. Design/methodology/approach This state-of-the-art review covers the area of geopolymer concrete, a class of sustainable construction materials that use a variety of alternative powders in lieu of cement for composing concrete, most being a combination of industrial by-products and natural resources rich in specific required minerals. It explores extensively the available essential materials for geopolymer concrete and provides a deeper understanding of its underlying chemical mechanisms. Findings This is a state-of-the-art review introducing the essential characteristics of alternative powders used in geopolymer binders and the effectiveness these have on material performance. Practical implications With the increase of need for alternative cementitious materials, identifying and understanding the critical material components and the effect they may have on the performance of the resulting mixes in fresh as well as hardened state become a critical requirement to for short- and long-term quality control (e.g. flash setting, efflorescence, etc.). Originality/value The topic explored is significant in the field of sustainable concrete technologies where there are several parallel but distinct material technologies being developed, such as geopolymer concrete and alkali-activated concrete. Behavioral aspects and results are not directly transferable between the two fields of cementitious materials development, and these differences are explored and detailed in the present study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".