MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Transverse Bar Spacing on Bond of Spliced Reinforcing Bars in Fully Grouted Concrete Block Masonry

2014· article· en· W1995559786 on OpenAlex
Denise S. Sanchez, Lisa R. Feldman

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBar (unit)Transverse planeMaterials scienceReinforcementUltimate tensile strengthComposite materialStructural engineeringMasonryBlock (permutation group theory)EngineeringGeologyGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-seven wall-splice specimens reinforced with number (No.) 15 (0.6 in.) deformed bars were tested to evaluate the effect of transverse bar spacing on the tensile resistance of the lap-spliced reinforcement. All specimens were 2 1/2 blocks wide and 13 courses tall and were constructed in running bond with all cells fully grouted. In all cases, the lapped bars were located within a single block cell and were either spaced 0, 25, or 50 mm (0, 1, or 2 in.) apart. It was determined that the calculated tensile resistance of the reinforcement was greater for bars that were in contact and furthermore, is insensitive to the magnitude of the transverse spacing provided in the case of noncontact lap splices. It would appear that both the American and Canadian provisions are appropriate for both contact and noncontact lapped bars given the resulting levels of conservatism.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.178 · 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