Enhancing Predictive Accuracy of Compressive Strength in Recycled Concrete Using Advanced Machine Learning Techniques with K-means Clustering
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
The urgent need to mitigate environmental impacts in the construction industry drives the exploration of sustainable practices, such as the use of recycled materials in concrete production. The primary objective of this study was to enhance the predictability of compressive strength in the concrete through the application of advanced machine learning (ML) techniques, specifically Gradient Boosting Regression (GBR) and Random Forest Regression (RFR). Using a comprehensive dataset of 353 eco-friendly concrete samples, the study carefully developed and validated these models to evaluate their performance. The findings exposed that the GBR model outperformed the RFR model, obtained an R² of 0.97 in training phase and 0.96 in testing phase, the findings supported further with root mean squared error (RMSE) of 1.99 and 3.06, and by mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.44 and 2.38 for training and testing phases respectively, where indicating high predictive accuracy. Conclusively, the broader adoption of GBR model for similar applications recommended by the study and points towards future research directions to integrate more diverse datasets and investigate more predictive models to improve sustainable construction practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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