MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511737461

Comparing Masonry Compressive Strength in Various Codes

2005· article· en· W1511737461 on OpenAlex
Yasser Korany, J GLANVILLE

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueACI Concrete International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryCompressive strengthMortarStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringBuilding codeMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to help establish more representative compressive strength values for masonry construction, this article compares the American, Canadian, British, and Australian masonry code philosophies and test methods for determining the compressive strength of masonry. Compressive strength tests of concrete and brick masonry prisms were conducted using each country’s test methods and the test values were compared to tabulated code values. Significant differences were found between the tabulated compressive strength values of the compared masonry codes, with the higher the unit strength, the higher the difference. These findings demonstrate the need for further research to improve the estimate of masonry compressive strength based on unit strength and mortar type.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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