MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4289550339 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0267

Effects of supplementary cementitious materials on the durability of glass aggregate mortars

2022· article· en· W4289550339 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Karla Gorospe, Emad Booya, Sreekanta Das

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilica fumeSorptivityDurabilityFly ashMetakaolinCementitiousMaterials scienceMortarTernary operationCompressive strengthComposite materialAlkali–silica reactionAggregate (composite)Portland cementCementGeopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The durability performance and sustainability of concrete and mortar can be enhanced by incorporating supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), such as fly ash, slag (SG), silica fume (SF), and metakaolin (MK). In this study, binary and ternary blends of the aforementioned SCMs were investigated to determine an optimal combination that enhances the durability of glass aggregate mortars. Compressive strength, chloride permeability, and sorptivity experiments were conducted for all mixtures at specimen ages of 28 and 90 days. Fourteen day alkali silica reaction tests were also performed to determine the expansion properties. It was determined that ternary blends of fly ash and SF effectively mitigate expansions, with mixtures containing fly ash being most effective due to its high silica (SiO2) content. Ternary blends of SG and SF were also found to be successful in reducing permeability. In addition, it was determined that optimal durability performance can be achieved with 10% MK and SF replacements.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicConcrete and Cement Materials Research→French-language works237,207→