Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prepared by the Task Committee on Strength Design in Aluminum of the Committee on Special Structures of the Committee on Metals of the Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE. This report compares the Canadian, European, and U.S. codes on aluminum in order to provide a basis for the preparation of a common specification document. The three codes are: CSA S157-03, Strength Design in Aluminum (2003, CSA); Eurocode 9, Design of Aluminum Alloy Structures (EC9); Specification of Aluminum Structures: Load and Resistance Factor Design , 2nd ed.(2000, Aluminum Association) Frequently using a tabular format, this report compares how the three codes treat symbols, design principles, material principles, resistance limited by yield or rupture, buckling, and connections. By stripping the load and resistance factors from the design expressions, this book is able to compare the essential rules of engineering on which the codes are based and to compare the positions taken by three different code writing committees. The results contributes to a common specification document by signaling the areas of agreement and, more importantly, the areas of disagreement. This book is a valuable resource for structural engineers working with aluminum, especially in Canada, Europe, or the United States.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".