MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Small-Scale Test Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Roof Trusses

2006· article· en· W2003554067 on OpenAlexafffund
J. L. Dawe, James V. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringBucklingHeelRidgeTrussChord (peer-to-peer)RoofHingeMaterials scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGeologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty three small-scale roof trusses were fabricated from cold-formed steel and tested to ultimate capacity. Each specimen was subjected to a single point load at the ridge. One series of specimens was fabricated with a hinge connection at the ridge while a second series had a gusset plate connection at this location. The hinge served to isolate the strength properties of the heel connection and upper chords while the addition of the ridge plate provided information that could be used to quantify the load sharing between the ridge and heel connections. The performance of several heel plate configurations, altered by adding edge stiffeners and varying their shapes and thicknesses, was evaluated. Local buckling of the top chord adjacent to the heel plate was the predominant failure mechanism in combination with distortion of the heel plates in instances where the plates were inadequately stiffened. Methods of reinforcing the top chords to prevent local buckling were investigated.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207