MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W580992512

DELAYED ETTRINGITE FORMATION VERSUS ALKALI-SILICA REACTION

2001· article· en· W580992512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey W. Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueACI Concrete International · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementCuring (chemistry)EttringiteCrackingPlaintiffJuryForensic engineeringLawEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents a summary of the legal case entitled Lone Star Industries, Inc. versus Lafarge Corp. and Lafarge Canada, Inc. Lone Star manufactured approximately 500,000 railroad ties using a combination of crushed-rock aggregate, Type III moderate high-alkali cement, and manual steam curing. The cement was supplied by defendant, Lafarge. The railroad ties developed external cracking due to internal expansion. The dispute focussed on a disagreement between the parties' expert witnesses as to whether the cause of the expansion in the railroad ties was delayed ettringite formation (DEF) or alkali-silica reaction (ASR). The experts for the plaintiff argued that the cracking was caused by DEF, as a result of the chemical composition of the cement supplied by Lafarge. The experts for the defendant testified that the cracking was due instead to the steam curing methods used by the plaintiffs, which resulted in ASR in the cement. Ultimately a jury found for Lafarge on all Lone Star's claims except for the claim of breach of express warranty.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACI Concrete InternationalSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207