MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597985820 · doi:10.3130/aijs.76.1319

FORMULAE TO EVALUATE STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF SHEATHED WALLS WITH UNCOVERED POSTS IN CONVENTIONAL POST AND BEAM STRUCTURES

2011· article· en· W1597985820 on OpenAlexaff
Kazuyoshi Komoto, Masahide Murakami, Masahiro INAYAMA

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transactions of AIJ) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsAssociation of Canadian Archivists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrussStructural engineeringShear wallDiagonalDuctility (Earth science)Beam (structure)Materials scienceShear (geology)Composite materialEngineeringMathematicsGeometryCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generally in Japanese style rooms, sheathed walls with uncovered post have widely been used instead of mud walls. The sheathing material is nailed and inserted in the frame with noggins. The formula to calculate the elastic strength, yield point, ultimate strength and the ductility factor has been derived for the sheathed wall, considering the elements of the shear resistance of the nail strucked in the noggins and frame, and the diagonal compression resistance of the sheathing material as truss action. In order to verify the formula, the shear racking tests of sheathed walls have been carried out where plywood and plasterboard have been used as sheathing materials. It is clear that the formula is sufficiently accurate to predict the elastic and plastic behavior of sheathed walls with uncovered post for structural calculation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transactions of AIJ)Same topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207