MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388960496 · doi:10.5539/jms.v13n2p169

Proposal Mixes Process Method for Masonry Structure Laying Mortar

2023· article· en· W4388960496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
White José dos Santos, Maria Teresa Gomes Barbosa, Vinicius Martins Galil, Edgar Vladimiro Mantilla Carrasco, Marco Antônio Penido de Rezende, Rejane Costa Alves, Eliene Pires Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de Juiz de ForaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMasonryMortarLayingCompressive strengthCementFlexural strengthPortland cementGeotechnical engineeringLimeStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an experimental method that procedures high-strength mortars to do with laying structural masonry found on the required properties and conditions of use. Literature research reviews were carried out that developed into the mix proportioning experimental process applied for mortar for laying structural masonry. Compressive strength tests, flexural strength tests, and digital microscope analysis were done to validate the methodology. The experimental program used Portland cement, hydrated lime, and natural quartzose sand. The research results mix all materials in a suitable proportion that shows in graphics with high assurance, i.e., 95%. Finally, it is possible to conclude that the process was efficient and provided high-quality masonry laying mortar about the existing environmental 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 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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207