MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1793908573

Effect of the Use of Cross Bar Supporting of Infilled Masonry in Improving Seismic Performance of Steel Buildings

2013· article· en· W1793908573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amir Hosein veisi nezhad, Iraj Rasoolan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of academic and applied studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringFrame (networking)Connection (principal bundle)Flexibility (engineering)Displacement (psychology)Plane (geometry)Computer scienceGeologyEngineeringMathematicsGeometryMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In steel buildings filled with infilled masonry, if there is no appropriate connection between infilled and frames in the direction of vertical on plane thereby it leads the infilled masonries to throw away in the form of traversal that is likely to cause casualties. Therefore, to prevent this throwing, it is necessary to create suitable connection between infilled masonry and the frame. Since the infilled masonries in the normal direction to the plane don't have out of plane required stability, using steel elements like bars can provide stability to these infilled masonries. In this article, by the help of numerical modeling of specifications of holding bars like number, length and diameter under different loading is studied. Results indicated that the more the length of bars of connection between frame and infilled was, the more load capacity and flexibility of its frame increased regarding the area under load-displacement curves.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of academic and applied studiesSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207