MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408013913 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2024-0465

Research on slurry mix ratio of sleeve valve pipe grouting for subway and its engineering application

2025· article· en· W4408013913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fan Chen, Jiaqi Guo, Xiaoyang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSlurryGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleeve valve pipe grouting plugging is the most commonly and effective method to control water leakage of subway station. The success of plugging grouting depends largely on performance indicators of grouting materials such as fluidity, setting time, and slurry stone strength. In this paper, a series of experiments were carried out to study the regulation of initial setting time, final setting time, viscosity, bleeding rate, compressive strength of cement–water glass slurry under different mix ratios. Based on the analysis of the results, combined with hydrogeologic condition of Furong East Road Station of Xi'an Metro, the optimal slurry mix ratio is 0.6 water–cement ratio and 1% water glass content. The field grouting test and numerical simulation show that the cement–water glass slurry grouting with this ratio has good grouting and waterproofing effect. The research results have great guiding significance for the water leakage treatment in subway stations.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicGrouting, Rheology, and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207