MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W573930041 · doi:10.33593/iccp.v9i1.523

Use of Glass FRP Reinforcing Bars instead of Steel Bars in CRCP in Quebec

2025· article· en· W573930041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D Thébeau, M. S. Eisa, Brahim Benmokrane

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Concrete Pavements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticReinforcementSlabCorrosionReinforced concreteService lifeGalvanizationStructural engineeringGlass fiberMaterials scienceForensic engineeringComposite materialEngineeringLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North America, there is a persistent problem of the deterioration of steel-reinforced concrete which has limited the service life and increased the maintenance cost of such structures. The first Canadian continuous reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) built on a highway was constructed in 2000 in the province of Quebec. Some cores taken in the first CRCP section five years after construction were already showing some corrosion in the longitudinal reinforcement at the crack location. Many options were then analysed in 2005 to resolve this problem and galvanised steel was selected as reinforcement for the next projects. One other non-corrosive reinforcement alternative is glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP). Fifteen (15) slab sections over an area of 150 m in three-lanes of Highway 40 Eastbound in Montreal (Quebec) were constructed using the newly developed CRCP system with GFRP reinforcement. In addition, 3 slab sections were reinforced using steel bars for comparison purposes. The main objective of this research project is to implement the technology and design of GFRP reinforcing bars in order to demonstrate their ability to meet all CRCP requirements.

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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Concrete PavementsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207