MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998775062 · doi:10.1139/l02-024

Experimental basis for the effective length factors of steel solid round cross-braced diagonals in CSA Standard S37-01

2002· article· en· W1998775062 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yongcong Ding, Kalid S. Jaboo, Yean. Sun, Murty K. S. Madugula

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiagonalStructural engineeringBracingWeldingTowerEngineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceBraceComposite materialGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective length factors for steel solid round diagonals in all-welded communication towers are investigated in this paper to provide experimental basis for the relevant clauses in CSA Standard S37-01. The results of a total of 31 all-welded lattice tower specimens with three types of cross-braced diagonals are presented. The failure loads for these members were determined from the maximum axial strains measured during the tests. The effective length factors were then back-calculated from the experimental failure loads using the compressive resistance formulas. The test results showed that even the significantly lower effective length factors specified in CSA S37-01, compared to CSA S37-94, are still conservative.Key words: all-welded towers, communication towers, cross-bracing, effective length factors, solid round steel diagonals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207