North American practices for connections in wood construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents results of a formal survey of current North American practices for connections in wood construction and synthesizes the data with related knowledge and experience. The primary aim of the survey was to assess current practices for selecting, designing, and specifying connections that join lumber and other structural wood‐based products to each other, or components made of other material. The survey instruments were broad based electronic questionnaires and follow‐up discussions with selected respondents, experts and producers of engineered wood products. Different questionnaires were distributed to structural engineers in Canada and the US, and architects in Canada. Follow‐up discussions were focussed on specific issues and removal of ambiguities in responses to questionnaires. It was found that traditional fasteners like bolts, nails, spikes and screws are most widely utilized. Connection selection, design and specification practices have not changed significantly owing to the introduction of modern engineered wood products into the market place. Major perceived deficiencies in engineering design information are: complexity of code rules, lack or scarcity of appropriate information related to screwed connections, non‐factory gluing, practical difficulty of using split ring and shear plate connectors, and appropriateness of using power‐driven nails when design codes only address use of hammer‐driven nails. The findings of the surveys are helping with prioritization of research activities within Canada and proposed revision of the Canadian wood design code.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".