MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406287199 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.3279

Comprehensive Evaluation of Geopolymer Concrete for Enhanced Railway Sleeper Performance

2023· article· en· W4406287199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H.V. Moulya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopolymerGeopolymer cementGeotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceStructural engineeringCivil engineeringEngineeringComposite materialCompressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research explores the load-bearing performance of geopolymer concrete sleepers as a sustainable alternative to conventional cement-based sleepers in railway infrastructure. Through rigorous comparative analysis, the study demonstrates that geopolymer sleepers exhibit comparable or superior strength characteristics under various loading conditions. The Key mechanical properties, including compressive strength, flexural strength, split tensile strength, and durability, are systematically assessed to evaluate the performance of geopolymer concrete thoroughly. The study investigates constant ratios of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) to fly ash (60:40) and different ratios recycled coarse aggregate to natural coarse aggregate (100:0, 0:100, 70:30) to determine the optimal mix proportions. The experimental methodology employs a mix ratio of 1:1.28:3 and an 8 M alkaline solution with a NaOH to Na2SiO3 ratio of 1:2.5, alongside an alkaline solution to binder ratio of 0.43. Additionally, the static bending strength of the sleepers is analyzed, providing deeper insights into their structural performance. This research significantly advances the knowledge and application of geopolymer concrete in railway infrastructure, highlighting its potential for enhanced sustainability and durability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207