MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2330327515 · doi:10.1061/41016(314)157

Cross-Border Connections: Guideline Documents, Codes, and Standards for wind

2008· article· en· W2330327515 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueStructures Congress 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWind and Air Flow Studies
Établissements canadiensRowan Williams Davies & Irwin (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBridge (graph theory)Wind powerEngineeringWork (physics)Building codeAerodynamicsWind engineeringArchitectural engineeringMeteorologyTelecommunicationsCivil engineeringGeographyMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringAerospace engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canada and the US have been leaders in developing the field of wind engineering. In the US one can go back to the collapse of Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 as a triggering event for much of the early research by F.B Farquharson, von-Karman and others during the 1940's and 1950's into bridge aerodynamics. Later, in the 1960's J. Cermak and his co-workers at Colorado State University undertook pioneering work in developing accurate simulations of the natural wind within the planetary boundary layer. Almost in parallel, in Canada, at the University of Western Ontario techniques were being developed by A.G. Davenport and co-workers for measuring the complex wind loading patterns on buildings, and for studying the dynamic response of large structures such as tall buildings (e.g. the original World Trade Centre towers of New York) and bridges. Cermak was very instrumental in having wind runnel testing methods recognized in wind codes and standards and in developing wind loading provisions in the US. In Canada Davenport was equally active in developing the wind provisions for the National Building Code of Canada. As the 1970's progressed the knowledge of wind effects on buildings was greatly advanced by both Cermak's and Davenport's teams. Also other institutes in Canada such as the National Research Council of Canada, the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto and Concordia in Montreal became active in the field of wind engineering research and consultation as well as several others such as MIT, Texas Tech and Johns Hopkins in the US. R. Scanlan pioneered advanced methods for analyzing bridge flutter in the US at Princeton and Johns Hopkins Universities. In the early 1970's the first purely private consulting firm in wind engineering was formed in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. It built its own wind tunnels and eventually became known as RWDI (short for Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc.). Also in the US in the early 1980's the private firm of CCP, short for Cermak Peterka Peterson Inc., was formed by members of the group at Colorado State University to provide wind engineering services similar to RWDI's. By the 1990's the field of wind engineering had grown substantially and besides the major research programs going on at Universities such as Texas Tech, Colorado State, Western Ontario, and Concordia, wind tunnel testing of large buildings, stadiums and bridges had become routine at the private wind tunnel testing houses such as RWDI and CPP. All of this activity meant that there was considerable world leading expertise present on both sides of the border and the competition between the various test houses led to an acceleration in the range of wind engineering services provided and techniques used. It also led to numerous collaborative efforts in the development of various wind codes and standards, which this paper will now briefly summarise.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,207
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,331
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle