Enhancing efficiency in evaluating alkali-silica reaction (ASR) damage: an automated approach to point-count microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The damage rating index (DRI) is a valuable microscopy tool for collecting and counting data on different types of concrete cracks, such as those associated with alkali-silica reaction (ASR) induced deterioration. Yet, the procedure presents drawbacks such as time consumption and variability linked to operator experience, which has sparked debates about the subjectivity of its outcomes. Embracing the forefront of technological advancements, this study explores the practicality of automating the DRI's data collection through artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Like many image processing and analysis applications that use AI, the DRI is an object classification and segmentation task. This study represents a step forward in leveraging automation to enhance the objectivity and efficiency of ASR damage characterization in concrete through point-count microscopy, along with proposing a set of tools to evaluate the outcomes from the application’s perspective for more efficient training data selection. Results show that despite obtaining acceptable performance individually, where the detector-classifier performance was found to have an accuracy of 0.744, and the crack counter accuracy was 0.988, the current version of the proposed machine still displays high variability in detecting, classifying, and counting distinct crack types. Overall, the machine overestimates ASR-induced damage, which was further verified through the Chi-square goodness of fit test, indicating that further training and enhancement of the proposed machine are required.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".