MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214740587 · doi:10.1520/stp162820190168

Dimension Stone Water Absorption and Bulk Specific Gravity: An Interlaboratory Study of the Influence of Size, Shape, and Test Methodology on Properties Determination

2021· book-chapter· en· W3214740587 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob W. Arnold, Daren S. Kneezel, Scott D. Scallorn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)Specific gravityAbsorption of waterTest (biology)MathematicsMaterials scienceStatisticsMineralogyGeologyComposite materialCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three laboratories independently conducted round-robin testing for determining percentage water absorption and bulk specific gravity of several types of dimension stone. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate interlaboratory variation associated with this testing, to evaluate the influence of the wetting method between ASTM and European procedures, and to better understand the effect of specimen shape/size and immersion duration. Each laboratory tested 15 different stone types of varying shape and size in accordance with ASTM C97, Standard Test Methods for Absorption and Bulk Specific Gravity of Dimension Stone. Specimen sizes included 3- and 2-in. cubes to evaluate the effect of the limits of ASTM specimen size requirements on test results. Subsequent testing was performed on 1½-in.-thick and ⅜-in.-thick plates cut from the 3-in. cube specimens to evaluate the effect of reduced specimen thickness on test results, as the fabrication of 2-in. minimum cube specimens is often impractical (e.g., stone tile or thin-stone cladding) and in some cases not possible (e.g., forensic evaluation of thin applications). The laboratories also tested the absorption of each stone type in accordance with the European Standard EN 13755 to evaluate the effect of the prescribed wetting method that differs from the ASTM method. The EN procedure prescribes the gradual immersion of specimens, whereas the ASTM procedure prescribes immediate and complete immersion. The EN procedure also prescribes weighing the wetted specimens every 24 h until constant mass is achieved, whereas the ASTM procedure prescribes 48-h immersion. Results of this testing are presented in figures and tables to compare the results from the three laboratories and analyze the effects of differences in the wetting method, specimen shape/size, and immersion duration on property determination. This paper provides an interpretation and discussion of the test results and presents proposed modifications to the ASTM C97 test procedure as appropriate (e.g., longer immersion duration or accommodation for thin specimens).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designObservational
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 topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207