MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094609777 · doi:10.18280/ria.340404

Application and Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for Predicting Mass Loss of Cement Raw Materials due to Decarbonation Process

2020· article· en· W3094609777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yakoub Boukhari

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationArtificial neural networkAlgorithmRange (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceMean squared errorMachine learningProcess (computing)Computer scienceAutoencoderBiological systemMaterials scienceMathematicsStatisticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work is to predict the mass loss of cement raw materials during the decarbonation process. The mass loss is influenced by the interaction of several parameters such as chemical composition of raw material, particle size, temperature range of decarbonation and time exposed. Therefore, predicting mass loss based on experimental parameters data is often challenging. For this reason, various machine learning algorithms such as deep networks using autoencoder DN-AE, artificial neural networks optimized by particle swarm optimization PSO-ANN, ANN optimized by ant colony optimization ACO-ANN and ANN are proposed to predict the mass loss. In this research, all models have been applied successfully to predict the mass loss with high accuracy. The results obtained have shown the superiority of DN-AE compared to PSO-ANN, ACO-ANN and ANN. In addition, PSO-ANN and ACO-ANN have a better performance than the individual use of ANN. The values of adjusted R2 indicate that 99.11%, 98.66%, 98.27% and 97.03% of data are explained by DN-AE, ACO-ANN, PSO-ANN and ANN respectively with scatter index (SI) less than 0.1 and maximum error less than 3.32%. Finally, the results justify that all models proposed can be employed to predict the mass loss as alternative tools.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207