MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W800081602

PERFORMANCE OF LAB-PRODUCED HVFA-BLENDED CEMENTS IN CONCRETE

2001· article· en· W800081602 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. Bouzoubaâ, V. M. Malhotra

Bibliographic record

VenueACI Concrete International · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFly ashPortland cementCementClinker (cement)KilnGypsumMaterials scienceWaste managementEnvironmental scienceComposite materialMetallurgyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of portland cement contributes significantly to carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Technologies are being developed to reduce the production of portland cement clinker in rotary kilns while maintaining the target production of cement to meet the demand of the construction industry. The Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) developed a high-volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete in which 55 to 60% of the portland cement is replaced by a low-calcium fly ash, a by-product of thermal power plants. To resolve manufacturing problems, a blended cement was developed. This cement incorporated high volumes of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Class F fly ash. The blended cement is made by intergrinding approximately 55% of a low-calcium fly ash and 45% of ASTM Type I or Type III cement clinker together with small amounts of gypsum and a dry high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA). This article presents the development of the HVFA-blended cements at CANMET and discusses their performance in concrete. The results of various lab tests studying the chemical and physical properties of the cements are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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