MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214726122 · doi:10.1111/jmi.13093

The presence of ettringite in concrete affected by alkali‐silica reaction and its potential use as recycled aggregate

2022· article· en· W4214726122 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Piersanti, Medhat Shehata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microscopy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEttringiteAlkali–silica reactionAggregate (composite)Materials scienceCrackingScanning electron microscopeAlkali–aggregate reactionAlkali metalComposite materialCementChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Samples were collected from a 20-year-old concrete suffering alkali-silica reaction for examination using scanning electron microscopy. The concrete was also exposed to cycles of freezing and thawing in service. The old concrete was processed and used as recycled concrete aggregate in new concrete tested under lab conditions. The study shows that backscattered electron imaging, energy dispersive x-ray analysis and x-ray mapping are helpful tools to identify the presence of alkali-silica reaction products. X-ray mapping was found helpful to confirm the presence of reaction products in cases where the products or the cracking are not very clear in the collected image. The study shows the presence of ettringite in the air voids of the concrete. The formed ettringite is believed to have no direct effect on the expansion due to the alkali-silica reaction as they form in an empty space without causing swelling pressure on the concrete. The effect of the ettringite formed in the air voids on the resistance to freezing/thawing was not confirmed in this study. Recycling the old affected concrete as aggregate in new concrete was found to cause significant expansion under lab conditions.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MicroscopySame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207