Monitoring of Vertical Movement in a Four-Story Wood-Frame Building in Coastal British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vertical movement and lumber moisture content (MC) were monitored during the construction of a four-story wood frame residential building in the winter of 2010–2011 in coastal British Columbia, Canada. The work was part of a long-term study to assemble field performance information and validate movement prediction methods to assist in the design of five- and six-story wood frame buildings. The MC readings of dimensional lumber generally remained around 20 % on average before the building was completely protected from rain with its roof and wall sheathing membrane under rainy construction conditions. With the data collection started when the roof sheathing was installed and continued into occupancy of the building, the vertical movement was found to occur during the process of wood drying and the installation of non-structural elements such as drywall and cladding etc., which increased the local loads. The total movement amount, contributed by wood shrinkage, gap closure (settlement), and other factors, reached about 34 mm at an exterior wall, 43 mm at an interior hallway shear wall, and 45 mm at an interior partition wall, after a total monitoring period of 17 months. These values were fairly comparable to the values predicted from wood shrinkage alone for this building.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".