50 Years Old and Still Going Strong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of fly ash for controlling damaging alkali-silica reaction (ASR) was first reported in 1949 by Robert Blanks of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1 Since then, hundreds of papers have reported the results of laboratory studies on the efficacy of fly ash in this role. While many specifications now permit the use of potentially reactive aggregates, provided a sufficient level of fly ash (or other preventive measure) is used in the concrete, there have been relatively few documented cases of major structures where fly ash has been successfully used together with reactive aggregates. A paper on two such cases, the Nant-y-Moch Dam in Wales, U.K., and the Lower Notch Dam in Ontario, Canada, was published by the primary author when those facilities were about 35 and 25 years old, respectively. 2 The dams were revisited in 2010 when they were about 50 and 40 years old; this article summarizes the performance of these structures with regard to ASR. Studies of performance in the field are essential for confirming the efficacy of preventive measures observed in the laboratory and for benchmarking accelerated laboratory tests intended for the rapid evaluation of such measures. Nant-y-Moch Dam
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.057 |
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".