MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140609871 · doi:10.11159/ijci.2021.005

Utilization of a Bayesian Network Algorithm to Predict the Compressive Strength of Concrete

2021· article· en· W3140609871 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar Najm, Hilal El-Hassan, Amr El-Dieb, Hamad Al Jassmi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Civil Infrastructure · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthBayesian networkBayesian probabilityComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Fuzzy Logic (FL), and Random Forest (RF), have been utilized widely in past literature in predicting the behavior of concrete products. Few studies used the probabilistic inference approach through Bayesian Networks (BN) to envisage the structural health integrity of concrete, while the possibility of employing BN algorithms for the prediction of its mechanical properties has not been investigated yet. This research evaluates the potential applicability of BN in predicting the compressive strength of selfcompacting concrete made with various supplementary cementitious materials and basalt fibers. Two learning algorithms, namely Nave Bayes and Markov Blanket, were employed along with various discretization methods to maximize network performance and minimize integral absolute error. Research findings showed that the Nave Bayes classifier coupled with K-means discretization tool with 4 segments of 'days' data and 3 segments of the remaining variables gave the highest correlation between experimental and predicted values. Meanwhile, the Markov Blanket algorithm failed to accurately predict the compressive strength. The accuracy of the predicted BN was found to be comparable to that obtained from an ANN model.

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 score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Civil InfrastructureSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207