MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411009740 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-01327-1

Interpretable machine learning approaches to assess the compressive strength of metakaolin blended sustainable cement mortar

2025· article· en· W4411009740 on OpenAlexaff
Naseer Muhammad Khan, Liqiang Ma, Waleed Bin Inqiad, Muhammad Saud Khan, Muhammad Zaka Emad, Saad S. Alarifi

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete and Cement Materials Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetakaolinCompressive strengthMortarCementComposite materialMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of naturally available materials such as metakaolin (MK) can greatly reduce the utilization of emission intensive materials like cement in the construction sector. This would reduce the stress on depleting natural resources and foster a sustainable construction industry. However, the laboratory determination of 28 day compressive strength (C-S) of MK-based mortar is associated with several time and resource constraints. Thus, this study was conducted to develop reliable empirical prediction models to assess CS of MK-based mortar from its mixture proportion using machine learning algorithms like gene expression programming (GEP), extreme gradient boosting (XGB), multi expression programming (MEP), bagging regressor (BR), and AdaBoost etc. A comprehensive dataset compiled from published literature having five input parameters including water-to-binder ratio, mortar age, and maximum aggregate diameter etc. was used for this purpose. The developed models were validated by means of error metrics, residual assessment, and external validation checks which revealed that XGB is the most accurate algorithm having testing [Formula: see text] of 0.998 followed by BR having [Formula: see text] values equal to 0.946 while MEP had the lowest testing [Formula: see text] of 0.893. However, MEP and GEP algorithms expressed their output in the form of empirical equations which other black-box algorithms couldn't produce. Moreover, interpretable machine learning approaches including shapely additive explanatory analysis (SHAP), individual conditional expectation (ICE), and partial dependence plots (PDP) were conducted on the XGB model which highlighted that water-to-binder ratio and sample age are some of the most significant variables to predict the C-S of MK-based cement mortars. Finally, a graphical user interface (GUI) was made for implementation of findings of this study in the civil engineering industry.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicConcrete and Cement Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207