MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996140181 · doi:10.1139/l08-073

Crack spacing for offshore structures

2008· article· en· W1996140181 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mohamed A. A. Hossin, H. Marzouk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineConcrete coverStructural engineeringCover (algebra)Bar (unit)SeawaterGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringReinforced concreteMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main focus of this investigation is directed toward the examination of crack-spacing expressions suitable for offshore concrete structure applications. Offshore structures are unique structures that are constantly exposed to harsh environmental conditions, including exposure to seawater and sea spray. The splash zone of an offshore structure is the section of the platform that is the most exposed to both a harsh marine environment and seawater. The design of offshore structures is controlled by mandatory design codes to ensure structural safety and integrity. Most of the available expressions for crack spacing were developed for building structures using normal-strength concrete and normal concrete cover. However, offshore structures are built using high-strength concrete with a thick concrete cover. Very little information is published on the crack analysis of high-strength concrete with a thick concrete cover for offshore applications. An experimental testing program was designed to examine the effects of concrete cover and the bar spacing of normal- and high-strength concrete on crack spacing. The different code expressions are evaluated with respect to the experimental results.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207