MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406849086 · doi:10.1016/j.cement.2025.100132

Optimization of microprobe analysis of cementitious materials incorporating glass powder under electron beam to avoid alkali migration

2025· article· en· W4406849086 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wena de Nazaré do Rosário Martel, Josée Duchesne, Benoît Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueCement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectron microprobeCementitiousAlkali metalMaterials scienceCathode rayMicroprobeComposite materialBeam (structure)ElectronMineralogyMetallurgyChemistryStructural engineeringNuclear physicsCementEngineeringPhysicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing use of alkali-rich glass powder (GP) as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in concrete has led to a rising number of studies focused on the microstructure of cementitious matrices incorporating GP. Electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA) is commonly used to characterize cementitious materials. However, alkali migration induced by electron irradiation - a well-known phenomenon in inorganic materials - remains underexplored in this context. This migration often leads to underestimation of Na and K and overestimation of Si and Ca, thus compromising the analysis of key elements in cementitious hydrates, such as C-S-H. Due to the lack of a tailored protocol for EPMA analysis of alkali-rich SCMs, this study established analytical conditions to minimize errors in quantifying pozzolanic GP. Mixed glass culets and GP particles embedded in 7-year-old ternary concrete made with GP and silica fume were analyzed using ten different current densities by varying beam size, current, and the sub-counting method. The results show that alkali migration is highly sensitive to material composition and irradiation conditions. Na losses exceeded 70% as Ca and Si overestimation reached approximately 13% at current densities above 0.354 nA/μm². Literature-reported densities often surpass this threshold. At those conditions, the implementation of a sub-counting method effectively reduces the Na loss to 3%. However, it introduced a tendency for Na overestimation at lower current densities . Among all conditions, a beam diameter of 6 µm and a current of 10 nA, was the most accurate, reducing losses to under 2% and closely matching the reference glass analysis.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCementSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207