MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968854639 · doi:10.1002/suco.201200064

Background to <i>fib</i> Model Code 2010 shear provisions – part II: punching shear

2013· article· en· W1968854639 on OpenAlexaff
Aurelio Muttoni, Miguel Fernández Ruiz, Evan C. Bentz, Stephen J. Foster, Viktor Sigrist

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Concrete · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
KeywordsPunchingStructural engineeringShear (geology)EngineeringCode (set theory)Computer scienceMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper outlines the theoretical background to the punching shear provisions implemented in the fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 and presents a practical example of their application. The aim is to explain the mechanical model that forms the basis for the punching design equations, to justify the relevance of the provisions and to show their suitability for the design and assessment of structures.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.018

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations70
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural ConcreteSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207