MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387639477 · doi:10.1080/21650373.2023.2266442

Developing a comprehensive prediction model for the compressive strength of slag-based alkali-activated concrete

2023· article· en· W4387639477 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Jafari, Vahab Toufigh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Cement-Based Materials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthSodium hydroxideGround granulated blast-furnace slagArtificial neural networkCarbon footprintLinear regressionParametric statisticsSlag (welding)CarbonationComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceFly ashMaterials scienceMachine learningMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsComposite materialGreenhouse gasChemical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to evaluate the effects of mix design parameters of ambient-cured slag-based alkali-activated concrete (GAAC) and develop a prediction model for its compressive strength (CS) by emphasizing the chemical compositions of alkaline solutions. A test setup including 625 specimens, in 125 mixes, was designed. A comprehensive parametric study and statistical evaluation were performed. Findings revealed the effectiveness of Na2O, SiO2, H2O, and GGBFS contents compared to the dosage of alkaline solutions and highlighted their disadvantages. The results also discovered the efficiency of the Bayesian linear regression in the simulation compared to the artificial neural network. Two models for estimating the CS of GAAC with reasonable accuracy were also proposed. Carbon footprint evaluation revealed that the carbon dioxide reduction of substituting ordinary concrete with GAAC depended on the desired properties of the concrete and was equal to 33% for grade 35 MPa concrete.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable Cement-Based MaterialsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207