MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in cement paste during accelerated mortar bar testing for pyrrhotite containing aggregate

2024· article· en· W4404983667 on OpenAlexaff
Klaartje De Weerdt, Mahsa Bagheri, Jan Lindgård, H. Lindstad, A. Rodrigues, Josée Duchesne, Pierre-Luc Fecteau, Marit Haugen, Tobias Danner, Børge Johannes Wigum, N. Oberhardt, Kurt Aasly, Barbara Lothenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueCement and Concrete Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortarAggregate (composite)Bar (unit)Materials scienceCementPyrrhotiteGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialPortland cementGeologyMetallurgySulfide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT) for pyrrhotite (Fe 1-x S) containing aggregates accelerates expansion using two regimes: Phase I, during which Fe 1-x S oxidation to iron hydroxide is accelerated by bleach and storage at 80 °C; Phase II that promotes thaumasite formation with continued bleach soaking and storage at 4 °C. Two bleach concentrations and one aggregate containing 0.5 wt% Fe 1-x S are tested. SEM-EDX data indicate that the oxidized iron precipitates as iron hydroxide at the place of the Fe 1-x S, leading to significant expansion (0.22%) during Phase I. The released S distributes in the cement paste but leads only to limited amount of additional ettringite and thaumasite and thus only to limited expansion (0.07%). The NaOCl bleach reduced during the test resulting in chloride and thus to Friedel's salt formation and ettringite stabilization at 80 °C. Only during the prolongation of Phase II, the formation of thaumasite and additional expansion was observed.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCement and Concrete ResearchSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207