MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162616775 · doi:10.3390/min11050517

Using Calcined Marls as Non-Common Supplementary Cementitious Materials—A Critical Review

2021· article· en· W3162616775 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité Mohammed VI Polytechnique
KeywordsMarlCementitiousCalcinationCementMaterials scienceCompatibility (geochemistry)MineralogyGeologyChemistryMetallurgyComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarizes the major research and scientific findings on the relevance of using calcined marl as supplementary cementitious material in developing eco-friendly cement for the next generation. Incorporation of calcined marl into cement can result in changes in the properties of these binders, and thus compatibility with other additions could be potential challenging, particularly at higher replacement ratios. From the reviewed literature, a detailed investigation on the characterization of calcined marls, activation methods, influencing parameters, along with studies on the hydration and microstructure was discussed, the overall objective aimed at coming up with the optimal physical and chemical parameters to generate highly reactive marl.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0510.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.296 · 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