MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281939533 · doi:10.1617/s11527-022-01947-3

Report of RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 3: validation of the R3 reactivity test across a wide range of materials

2022· article· en· W4281939533 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Londoño-Zuluaga, Asghar Gholizadeh‐Vayghan, Frank Winnefeld, François Avet, Mohsen Ben Haha, Susan A. Bernal, Özlem Çizer, Martin Cyr, Matej Dolenec, Pawel Durdzinski, Johannes Haufe, R.D. Hooton, Siham Kamali-Bernard, Xuerun Li, Alastair Marsh, Milena Marroccoli, Maruša Mrak, Yeakleang Muy, Cédric Patapy, Malene Thostrup Pedersen, Serge Sabio, Simone Schulze, Ruben Snellings, Antonio Telesca, Anya Vollpracht, Guang Ye, Shizhe Zhang, Karen Scrivener

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials and Structures · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsCementitiousGround granulated blast-furnace slagMaterials sciencePortland cementReactivity (psychology)Compressive strengthMortarComposite materialFly ashSolid mechanicsCement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RILEM TC 267 TRM– “Tests for Reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials” recommends the Rapid Reliable Relevant (R 3 ) test as a method for determining the chemical reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in Portland cement blends. In this paper, the R 3 test was applied to 52 materials from a wide range of conventional and alternative SCMs with the aim to validate such test. An excellent correlation was found between the cumulative heat release and the bound water determined following the R 3 test method. Comparison of the R 3 test results to mortar compressive strength development showed that all conventional SCMs (e.g. blast furnace slag and fly ashes) followed the same trend, with the notable exception of very reactive calcined kaolinitic clays. It is discussed, through an in-depth statistical regression analysis of the R 3 reactivity test results and the 28 days relative compressive strengths, how reactivity threshold values for classification of the chemical reactivity of SCMs could be proposed based on the R 3 test results.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations184
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials and StructuresSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207