Numerical and machine learning modeling of GFRP confined concrete-steel hollow elliptical columns
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
This article investigates the behavior of hybrid FRP Concrete-Steel columns with an elliptical cross section. The investigation was carried out by gathering information through literature and conducting a parametric study, which resulted in 116 data points. Moreover, multiple machine learning predictive models were developed to accurately estimate the confined ultimate strain and the ultimate load of confined concrete at the rupture of FRP tube. Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Adaptive Boosting (ADAB), Categorical Boosting (CATB), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) machine learning techniques were utilized for the proposed models. Finally, these models were visually and quantitatively verified and evaluated. It was concluded that the CATB and XGB are standout models, offering high accuracy and strong generalization capabilities. The CATB model is slightly superior due to its consistently lower error rates during testing, indicating it is the best model for this dataset when considering both accuracy and robustness against overfitting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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