MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200118159 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0194

Interaction between cement clinker constituents and clay minerals and their influence on the strength of cement-based stabilized soft clay

2021· article· en· W3200118159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jun Wu, Zuhua Deng, Yongfeng Deng, Annan Zhou, Yunsheng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCementClay mineralsBentoniteClinker (cement)Materials scienceCuring (chemistry)Hydration reactionMortarFlocculationGeotechnical engineeringExpansive clayGeologyMineralogyComposite materialChemistryPortland cementSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The strength of cement-based stabilized clay is less than that of concrete and mortar and shows a distinct variability owing to the existence of various clay minerals. To better understand the cement–clay reactions and the strength generation, two artificial clays with the unique clay mineral and major strength-producing constituents of cement clinker were investigated via mechanical, compositional, and microstructural analyses. Results show that C 3 A-stabilized clay gains strength rapidly in the first 3 days, but this favourable tendency vanishes over time. After 90 days of curing, the strength of C 3 S-stabilized clay is about four times that of the corresponding C 3 A-stabilized clay, indicating the remarkable long-term stabilization efficiency of C 3 S. Furthermore, clay minerals primarily draw into strength evolution in the reaction process. Despite that bentonite is more reactive than kaolin as long as the highly alkaline conditions persist, it has a higher probability to flocculate into large aggregates during the mixing process, which may impair the reaction efficiency and even brings adverse stabilization effects, suggesting the importance of uniformity control.

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)0.000
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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207