Evaluation of Two Automated Methods for Air-Void Analysis of Hardened Concrete
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air-void analysis of hardened concrete is typically performed according to ASTM C457-09 [“Standard Test Method for Microscopical Determination of Parameters of Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 4.2, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA], which can be tedious to perform and is operator subjective. Several alternative automated methods have been proposed, two of which are the Rapid Air 457 and the scanner method developed at Michigan Technological University. In each of these methods, images are collected from contrast enhanced surfaces of polished concrete, and image analysis is performed to calculate air-void system parameters. In this research, 22 concrete samples were examined using these two methods, the air-void system parameters were compared to those obtained from the ASTM C457 standard, and the precision of the results was compared to the recommendations of ASTM standard. It was concluded that the total air content and the spacing factor of the air voids measured by Rapid Air 457 and the scanner method were comparable to the air content and the spacing factor measured according to the standard manual method. Considering the fact that the automated image systems could detect air voids smaller in diameter than those typically seen by an operator, it was found that if these small air voids are counted, calculated spacing factors are smaller than those calculated by the manual method. If small diameter air voids are removed from the analysis, then spacing factors agree fairly well with those calculated by ASTM C457 from stereo-optical microscopy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it