MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999311055 · doi:10.1142/s0129065706000858

KOHONEN'S FEATURE MAPS FOR FLY ASH CATEGORIZATION

2006· article· en· W1999311055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. C. Nataraja, M.A. Jayaram, Caroline Ravikumar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neural Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFly ashSelf-organizing mapCategorizationFeature (linguistics)On the flyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fly ash is a common admixture used in concrete and may constitute up to 50% by weight of the total binder material. Incorporation of fly ash in Portland-cement concrete is highly desirable due to technological, economic, and environmental benefits. This article demonstrates the use of artificial intelligence neural networks for the classification of fly ashes in to different groups. Kohonen's Self Organizing Feature Maps is used for the purpose. As chemical composition of fly ash is crucial in the performance of concrete, eight chemical attributes of fly ashes have been considered. The application of simple Kohonen's one-dimensional feature maps permitted to differentiate three main groups of fly ashes. Three one-dimensional feature maps of topology 8-16, 8-24 and 8-32 were explored. The overall classification result of 8-16 topology was found to be significant and encouraging. The data pertaining to 80 fly ash samples were collected from standard published works. The categorization was found to be excellent and compares well with Canadian Standard Association's [CSA A 3000] classification scheme.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Neural SystemsSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207