MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409799832 · doi:10.11159/icsect25.160

Fresh State Requirements for 3D Printable Mortar Mix

2025· article· en· W4409799832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isabelle Gerges, Faten Abi Farraj, Nicolas Youssef, Fadi Hage Chehade, Emmanuel Antczak

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortar3D printingState (computer science)Computer scienceMaterials scienceComposite materialProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant innovations have been achieved in the building sector with the use of 3D printing technology, which enables the printing of complex structures with less time, labor, waste, and costs.The key quest in this technology is to have a printable material that must achieve several requirements in order to be printable, such as achieving good flowability and then structural stability after extrusion, otherwise, this can cause damage to the printer and potentially lead to greater maintenance expenses.Therefore, this research uses laboratory tests to check the fresh state properties that the mix must achieve in order to be printable.Slump, slump flow, manual device gun, slug test, uniaxial unconfined compression test, and vicat apparatus have been used to characterize the formulated mix at fresh state and check its printability.These tests are simple to use, require less manual labor, materials, time to prepare, and provide fast results with little post-processing needs.A good prediction of the material behaviour has been obtained using these tests, checking that the material achieves the general fresh state properties flowability, extrudability, buildability, and open time.Then, checking the elevation of yield stress and green strength in function of time in order to ensure that the material can be buildable and sustain its weight without any failure.Finally, these tests have given a good sign for having an appropriate printability by successfully printing multiple shapes without any failure.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207