Assessment of civilian structures for military applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing tendency to use urban civilian buildings for military purposes prompts the need for the assessment of their blast resistance. Many of these buildings are made of reinforced concrete (RC). Popular tools available for the assessment of existing RC structures in practice include guidelines and design standards, technical manuals and specialised software. These tools include certain assumptions based on scarcely available test data, as historically they were collected for military purposes. Efforts to transfer this knowledge from military to civilian applications are relatively recent and need be corroborated by further testing and numerical analysis. The objective of this paper is to present the results of field tests on full-scale RC members to check the validity of a number of assumptions routinely made in current numerical/analytical models. The data captured during the tests, including reflected pressure and member displacements, are compared with results of empirical and numerical models, in order to gauge the robustness and accuracy of the assumptions underpinning these models. Finally, recommendations are made for an expedient assessment of existing buildings based on simple methodologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it