MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189763795 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0757

Effect of water-to-cement ratio on cracking resistance of concrete at early age in restrained ring specimens

2021· article· en· W3189763795 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dejian Shen, Yang Jiao, Ci Liu, Jiacheng Kang, Xiaojian Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Properties and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCrackingShrinkageCementWater–cement ratioMaterials scienceComposite materialReinforced concrete

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, low water-to-cement (w/c) ratio has been put into widespread use in engineering practice. However, low w/c ratio may give rise to high self-desiccation, which may lead to the decrease of early-age cracking resistance. Investigating the impact of w/c ratio on cracking resistance is utterly meaningful to better understand the cracking mechanism of concrete. However, the corresponding investigations remain lacking, especially when the ring test is utilized. In the present study, ring tests for three concrete mixtures with different w/c ratios were conducted to investigate the early-age cracking resistance of concrete from multiple parameters. Results showed that (i) the development rate of shrinkage of concrete for mixture W50 was slower than that for mixtures W33 and W40; (ii) the value and development rate of residual stress of concrete decreased when the w/c ratio increased; (iii) the relaxed stress for all mixtures developed rapidly at very early age, and reached the maximum value quickly; (iv) the cracking resistance of concrete increased when the w/c ratio increased at early age.

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Properties and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207