Assessment of compressive strength of eco-concrete reinforced using machine learning tools
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
Predicting the compressive strength of Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB) is a challenging task due to the nonlinear relationships among their diverse components, including cement, clay, sand, silt, and fibers. This study employed PyCaret, an automated machine learning platform, to address this complexity by developing and evaluating predictive models. The analysis demonstrated that fiber content exhibited a strong positive correlation with cement content, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9444, indicating a significant influence on compressive strength. Multiple machine learning algorithms were tested using metrics such as the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) to assess model performance. Among these, the Extra Trees Regressor showed the best predictive capability with R2 = 0.9444 (highly accurate predictions), RMSE = 0.4909 (low variability in prediction errors) and MAE = 0.1899 (minimal average prediction error). The results confirm that PyCaret effectively automates the machine learning workflow, enabling accurate modeling of complex material behavior. The Extra Trees Regressor outperformed other algorithms due to its ability to handle highly nonlinear and multivariate datasets, making it particularly well-suited for predicting the compressive strength of CEB. This approach offers a significant advantage over traditional laboratory testing, which is time-consuming and resource-intensive. By incorporating machine learning techniques, especially using PyCaret’s streamlined processes, the prediction of CEB strength becomes more efficient and reliable, providing a practical tool for engineers and researchers in material science.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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