MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970409590 · doi:10.1680/stbu.2004.157.4.279

Neural network modelling of creep in masonry

2004· article· en· W1970409590 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahmoud Reda Taha, Aboelmagd Noureldin, Naser El‐Sheimy, Nigel G. Shrive

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsCreepMasonryArtificial neural networkStructural engineeringRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceMaterials scienceStress (linguistics)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stresses and deformations in concrete and masonry structures can be significantly altered due to creep. However, accurate prediction of creep is difficult due to its dependency on a large number of parameters (e.g. section geometry, relative humidity, stress level, age of loading). This paper introduces a new method based on artificial intelligence to model creep of masonry. Feedforward artificial neural networks (ANN) are investigated as a modelling technique for predicting creep. Experimental data for creep of structural masonry are used to develop the networks. Changes in network architecture are examined to produce prediction models. Fifteen networks are developed and analysed statistically. Creep models with accuracy in the range ± 15% are attainable using ANN.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and BuildingsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207