Behavior of Masonry Mortar Containing a Non-Harmful Antifreeze Admixture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major hurdles to a wider adoption of antifreeze admixtures in cold weather concreting applications is a lack of performance data for the increasing number of products currently available on the market. This paper assesses the performance of an existing non-harmful commercial antifreeze admixture (MNC-C15) in masonry mortar. The performance was evaluated in terms of strength gain at 7 days, 28 days and 56 days at two different temperatures (-10°C and -15°C). The potential need for heat protection before exposure to subfreezing temperatures was also evaluated. The results showed that the control mortar gained little to no strength during the curing period in subfreezing conditions. The mortar with the antifreeze admixture, on the other hand, showed appreciable strength gain even without an initial period of protection from freezing, suggesting that the admixture allowed the hydration reactions to proceed at temperatures of -10°C and -15°C. However, a freezing prevention period between 6 and 12 hours was necessary for the mortar to reach an acceptable compressive strength at those temperatures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".