Reliability of the damage rating index to assess the condition of concrete affected by external sulfate attack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The damage rating index (DRI) has proven to be a quite reliable microscopic technique enabling the condition assessment of concrete affected by internal swelling reactions. Yet, very little research has been conducted on the use of the DRI to appraise induced deterioration caused by physical salt attack (PSA) and external sulfate attack (ESA). This study aims to assess the condition of concrete subjected to different salt solutions (i.e. sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), sodium chloride (NaCl), seawater and limewater), and exposure conditions (i.e. partially and fully immersed) through the DRI. Concrete specimens displaying two distinct water/cement ratios (i.e. 0.45 and 0.65) were manufactured and exposed to the above salt solutions for 12 months. Then, the samples were removed from the exposure conditions and prepared for microscopic analysis. The DRI was shown to be an effective technique to assess the condition of PSA- and ESA-affected concrete since different degrees of damage and features were captured for the various exposure conditions studied.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".