MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7090302496 · doi:10.5703/1288284318154

Revising Specifications to Enable New Materials and Adapting to Performance of Low-Clinker Concretes

2025· article· en· W7090302496 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPozzolanCementitiousPortland cementFly ashPozzolanaClinker (cement)CementAggregate (composite)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To support the concrete industry’s goals of meeting net-zero carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050, new types of lower-clinker cements are being developed for use. While Portland cement will continue to be used as part of the cementitious materials in the bulk of applications, use of Portland cement as the sole binder in concrete is diminishing globally. Reducing the clinker content of concretes is complicated by the limited and diminishing availability of traditionally used Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs), such as fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slags, whether added as separate additions to concrete or as components of blended cements. This has spawned increased interest and use of natural pozzolans such as volcanic materials, calcined clays, and other novel activated pozzolans. However, some of these activated or manufactured pozzolans either may not meet the current definition of pozzolans, and some may not meet some of the prescriptive limits in current specification. Performance specifications will help in the adoption of new SCMs and low-clinker cements that are being developed and coming to the market. The rapid changes in the availability of cementitious materials, combined with the need to accelerate the adoption and use of concrete mixtures provided they demonstrate equivalent performance to traditionally specified concretes, requires rapid adoption of performance specifications and test methods.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicConcrete and Cement Materials Research→French-language works237,207→