MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1902234433 · doi:10.1139/l2012-013

Assessment of CSA A23.3 structural integrity requirements for two-way slabs

2012· article· en· W1902234433 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsBuckland & Taylor (Canada)World Wildlife Fund CanadaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunchingSlabStructural engineeringReinforcementStructural integrityColumn (typography)Reinforced concreteEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the post-punching behaviour of reinforced concrete slab–column connections with a goal of providing adequate structural integrity reinforcement. The test results of seven interior slab–column connections are presented. A study was made of the effects of slab thickness, length of structural integrity reinforcing bars, distribution of structural integrity reinforcement in slabs with rectangular columns, and the placement of structural integrity reinforcement in slabs with drop panels. Results from this test series and other researchers were compared with predictions using the CSA A23.3-04 design equations for both punching shear and post-punching resistance. The test results demonstrated that the provision of structural integrity reinforcement in accordance with the requirements of CSA A23.3-04 resulted in significant post-punching resistance and the design equations provide a reasonable estimate of this resistance.

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 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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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