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 OpenAlexaff
Luping Tang, Jens M. Frederiksen, Ueli Angst, R.B. Polder, C. Alonso, Bernhard Elsener, R.D. Hooton, José Pacheco

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.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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

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
GenreOther

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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRILEM Technical LettersSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207