MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979873903 · doi:10.1260/1369-4332.15.1.107

Equivalent RHS Approach for the Design of EHS in Axial Compression or Bending

2012· article· en· W1979873903 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Structural Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuckleStructural engineeringBendingCompression (physics)Section (typography)Minor (academic)EngineeringFlexural strengthMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite materialComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of steel elliptical hollow sections (EHS) has grown steadily, but the implementation of EHS has been done without appropriate design guidelines or procedures. A pragmatic objective has been to develop a section conversion method to transform the EHS into an equivalent shape for which design equations and guidelines already exist. This paper further explores the equivalent RHS (rectangular hollow section) approach for member design. By using the equivalent RHS approach to convert the EHS into an equivalent RHS, the validity of existing RHS cross-section classification limits and member design equations are demonstrated for EHS columns subjected to axial compression that buckle about the major axis and the minor axis, and EHS beams subjected to bending about the major axis and the minor axis. The equivalent RHS approach is a single consistent and rational procedure, and it is shown to be a viable method for designing EHS compression members and flexural members.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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