MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414755260 · doi:10.1201/9781003645399-4

Experimental justification of the NCP model

2025· book-chapter· en· W4414755260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Ekolu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbonationServiceability (structure)Natural (archaeology)Statistical analysisStatistical model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The myriad of known factors that influence carbonation are divided into two (2) main categories consisting of the material system and environmental exposure. Under the materials category are compositional factors, physical parameters and serviceability factors, while the environmental category consists of the important exposure conditions especially RH, sheltering, atmospheric CO 2 concentration and temperature. The code-type engineering models employed in design are typically based on fundamental laws of physics and mathematical functions. This approach is also the methodology employed in development of the NCP model. This chapter presents an experimental justification of the model using worldwide data from independent research sources. The NCP model was validated using worldwide experimental data comprising natural carbonation of concretes in several cities and countries of Lyon (France), Austin (USA), Changsha (China), Chennai (India), Fredericton (Canada), along with data generated from urban locations of Pretoria, Durban and Johannesburg (South Africa). For each data set, the model’s predictions are compared with actual measured values of natural carbonation. Statistical error analysis is done to examine the model’s prediction accuracy. Employment of the data taken from worldwide sources covering the different human-inhabited global climates and geographical regions, also validates global applicability of the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.058 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207