MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251263077 · doi:10.32920/16709698.v2

Sulphide oxidation mortar tests for evaluation of the oxidation potential of sulphide-bearing aggregate

2021· preprint· en· W4251263077 on OpenAlexafffund
Mona El-Mosallamy, Medhat Shehata

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFaculty of Engineering and Architectural Science, Ryerson University
KeywordsOxidizing agentMetakaolinMortarSodium hypochloriteAggregate (composite)Relative humidityMetallurgyBar (unit)Materials scienceSlag (welding)ChemistryFly ashComposite materialGeologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes two new sulphide mortar bar tests. The two tests involve two exposure conditions: the first one relies on soaking the sample in an oxidizing agent (6% sodium hypochlorite) for three hours at room temperature to promote oxidation while the other test adopts a range of temperatures and relative humidity that promote oxidation and sulphate attack. Both tests were effective in discriminating between aggregates with oxidizable sulphide and those without. Moreover, the use of low-calcium fly ash at 25% and slag at 30% reduced the expansion but not to the level of samples with non-sulphide aggregates. On the contrary, 10% of metakaolin produced more expansion.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207