MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198459036 · doi:10.1680/jgele.21.00016

The pyrite heave problem: new insights from trace-element analysis

2021· article· en· W3198459036 on OpenAlexaff
M. I. Ryskin, Michael Maher

Bibliographic record

VenueGéotechnique Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyriteTrace elementSedimentary depositional environmentGeologySedimentary rockGeotechnical engineeringDiscrete element methodMineralogyMining engineeringGeochemistryGeomorphologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 12 000 houses built in Ireland between 2002 and 2008 are estimated to have sustained structural damage due to swelling initiated by pyrite in crushed rock aggregate beneath floor slabs. The Irish Standard I.S. 398-1 presented a categorization protocol for sub-floor fill material suspected of causing pyritic expansion. While at the extremes, the current risk characterisation protocol is definitive, there is a broad range of conditions where the findings are inconclusive, and the risk assessment requires expert interpretation. In this study, the possibility of using trace-element analysis to better quantify risk from reactive pyrite has been explored. The form and amount of pyrite in sedimentary rock are determined by the depositional environment, which also determined the concentration of trace elements such as molybdenum (Mo) and uranium (U). In this study, a range of high- and low-risk aggregates has been analysed. The results show very good correlation between the empirically derived risk for pyrite expansion categories and molybdenum and uranium enrichments and the ratio between these concentrations. The results to date are very promising and suggest that further research and testing of more samples will help to confirm the basis of the analysis and establish numerical risk thresholds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéotechnique LettersSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207