Research progress on carbon dioxide curing of cementitious materials: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of CO 2 curing in cementitious materials involves a semi-dry carbonation reaction that transpires between carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and cementitious substances in the presence of water following initial molding. This reaction facilitates carbon fixation, contributing to the reduction of CO 2 emissions and the production of low-carbon, high-value-added building materials. Cementitious materials subjected to CO 2 curing exhibit effective CO 2 sequestration and demonstrate improvements in mechanical properties and durability to a certain degree. This paper reviews and discusses significant advancements in the CO 2 curing of cementitious materials, encompassing aspects such as the chemical reactions involved, the degree of carbonation, the CO 2 curing regime, and the mathematical models associated with the CO 2 curing process. Notably, it is emphasized that the CO 2 curing process is primarily governed by the carbonation reactions of unhydrated mineral phases, specifically C 3 S and β-C 2 S, within the cement, resulting in the formation of amorphous SiO 2 and crystalline CaCO 3 as final products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".