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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Farshad Habibi, Erin Redl, Michael Egberts, William D. Cook, Denis Mitchell

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.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.017
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

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 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Response to Dynamic LoadsFrench-language works237,207