MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experiences from RILEM TC 235-CTC in recommending a test method for chloride threshold values in concrete

2018· article· en· W2892732085 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRILEM Technical Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Value (mathematics)Service (business)Test methodComputer scienceRound robin testThreshold limit valueReliability engineeringService lifeCorrosionOperations researchSimulationForensic engineeringEngineeringStatisticsMedicineMaterials scienceMathematicsMetallurgyBusinessMachine learningMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chloride threshold value is an important input parameter in service life predictions. There has been a need for a reliable method for testing this value in order to improve the understanding of basic factors influencing the corrosion initiation. For this reason RILEM technical committee (TC) 235-CTC was formed with the ultimate aim to recommend a suitable test method capable of delivering data with acceptable measurement uncertainty. During the TC’s life, a test method was proposed and a Round-Robin Test (RRT) was organised to evaluate it. Due to the unexpected results from the RRT, the ultimate aim of the TC was not reached. There were some experiences obtained from the TC’s work especially in designing the test method which are worthy for supporting future researchers continuing to search for a reliable test method for it. This technical letter presents the TC’s experiences.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · 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