MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985288939 · doi:10.1061/47627(406)6

Experimental Study and Theoretical Analysis on the Bond Behavior of Cement Grouted GFRP Bolts

2011· article· en· W1985288939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qinghua Zhao, Jianhua Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticCorrosionStructural engineeringBondGlass fiberMaterials scienceReinforcementCementBond strengthService lifeMortarComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringAdhesive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bolt is widely used in ground reinforcement engineering such as slope, tunnel or large caves engineering. The traditional steel bolt has some disadvantages, because it may be corroded by groundwater or chemical solutions, which cause the reductions of mechanical strength and service life. Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bolt has the good characteristics of lighter weight, higher strength and corrosion-resistance. Those advantages make it a better alternative in some fields of engineering, and attract great attention of many scholars. Based on the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) criterion, pullout test is used to study the bond behaviors of GFRP bolt in cement mortar. Meanwhile, the bond stress of the GFRP bolt along the bolt longitudinal direction is analyzed in theory. The conclusions from the research may shed a light for a more rational design of GFRP anchors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207