MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206392624 · doi:10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00733

Potential applications of geopolymer concrete in construction: A review

2021· review· en· W3206392624 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad L. Almutairi, Bassam A. Tayeh, Adeyemi Adesina, Haytham F. Isleem, Abdullah M. Zeyad

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Studies in Construction Materials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopolymerGeopolymer cementPortland cementPozzolanRaw materialConstruction engineeringFly ashCivil engineeringWaste managementCementEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The environmental aspects of sustainable development in the construction industry consist of the utilization of secondary raw materials and materials which can be recycled in the design and construction of new structures. The preliminary and inevitable interest in the use of full or partial replacements of by-products as complementary pozzolanic materials was mostly induced by the enforcement of the reduction/elimination of the greenhouse gas emission from the production of Portland cement. With the significant evolution of geopolymer concrete as an alternative for Portland cement in the past decade, it is necessary to explore possible construction applications in which geopolymer concrete can be utilized. Hence, this review paper was carried out to explore various elements such as the precursors used in geopolymers concrete and their corresponding applications. The environmental impacts of various geopolymer concrete are also discussed. This paper also presents an overview of the real applications of geopolymer concrete for the construction of various infrastructures. Recommendations and prospects for geopolymer concrete are also provided.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations468
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Studies in Construction MaterialsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207