MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203840296 · doi:10.18280/acsm.450405

Optimal Mix Ratios of Green Building Materials and Construction Cost Control

2021· article· en· W3203840296 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Bridging (networking)Reliability engineeringOperations researchEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green concrete wall-building composite materials (namely GBMs, green building materials for short) have superior mechanical properties and good durability, thus they are now a high-profile topic in relevant research field. However, due to the existence of risk factors such as the high initial cost, and unclear policy direction, the promotion of GBMs has been greatly limited. In this context, it is a necessary work to study the cost control of construction projects, and figure out the relationship between the saving of building operating cost and the increase of initial construction cost. For this purpose, this study experimented on the optimal mix ratios of GBMs to control the construction budget of engineering projects. At first, this paper modeled the strain-hardening and steady-state cracking of GBMs, and constrained the models based on the bridging rule, the energy criterion, and the strength criterion. Then, this paper constructed a fractal model for the dense effect of powder particles in the aggregates of the GBMs, and analyzed its fractal features; after that, this paper designed the mix ratios of GBMs and experimented on the mechanical properties; at last, this paper constructed a production cost-use benefit model of the GBMs, completed the construction budget control of the engineering project, and gave experimental results of the performance of GBMs and the use cost calculation and analysis results.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207