The damage rating index (DRI): A practical guideline for autonomous operator training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The damage rating index (DRI) is a microscopy tool that captures the extent of internal swelling reaction-induced deterioration (ISR). Although engineering practitioners more widely use mechanical tests, confirming the presence of ISR products through microscopy is required and standard practice. A more detailed evaluation can be achieved by combining mechanical and microscopy techniques, including the DRI, which has proven reliable in diagnosing the extent of ISR-induced deterioration. However, there is currently a lack of practical guidelines and standards in the literature explaining how to perform the DRI, raising concerns about the tool's use, particularly regarding operator variability and subjectivity. This work aims to create practical guidelines for conducting the DRI analysis methodology on concrete affected by alkali-silica reaction (ASR) originating from either reactive coarse or fine aggregates at various degrees of damage (i.e., 0.05%, 0.12%, 0.20%, and 0.30% expansion). Ranges of expected values were established to serve as autonomous training for new operators using the same reactive aggregates and mixtures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".