MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7038435466

Impacts of Test Variables on The Electrical Resistivity Measurements of Hardened Concrete

2022· dissertation· W7038435466 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsElectrical resistivity and conductivityDurabilityService lifeElectrical resistance and conductanceCuring (chemistry)Test method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating concrete quality and performance, especially determining the resistance of concrete to fluid and ion ingress is fundamental to estimating concrete’s durability and predicting the service life of concrete structures. As a simple and rapid indicator of concrete’s resistance to any fluid and ion ingress, the bulk electrical resistivity test has gained increasing interest. However, the bulk resistivity measurement can be affected by many factors. This study aims to analyze the impacts of different factors on bulk resistivity measurement, including curing condition and storage solution, degree of saturation, temperature, AC frequency, different test devices, specimen shape and thickness, and mixture compositions. The correlations between each test variable and bulk resistivity are discussed. The bulk and surface resistivity measurements are compared as well. The results show that different factors affected resistivity measurements differently, the clear understanding of their impacts could result in more accurate resistivity measurements for assessing the durability of concrete.

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)0.006
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicConcrete and Cement Materials Research→French-language works237,207→