MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chinese Design Recommendations for External Strengthening by FRP Laminates and Related Works in ACI and ISIS Code Provisions

2011· article· en· W2006546559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianxun Ma, Piers Carlson, Ling Ling Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticStandardizationCode (set theory)EngineeringSeismic resistanceStructural engineeringPromotion (chess)Forensic engineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By comparing the Chinese CECS 146:2003, the American ACI 440.2R-02 and the Canadian ISIS Design manual No.4, discussion is extended in terms of ways to improve the performance of concrete structures. Although the Chinese code treats only carbon fibers, the basic concepts for FRP strengthening are common to all three examined design. However, safety factors differ because of the different backgrounds and application experience. The ACI 440.2R-02 goes into great detail concerning FRP materials and utilization where creep and fatigue are important factors. The ISIS manual No.4 gives many design examples and promotes the use of FRP through easy-to-use design charts. The CECS 146:2003 also mentions applications for seismic resistance. Further improvement in the area of design stipulations for use of FRP laminates will include standardization of safety factors, and also promotion of these guides for a wide use around the industry.

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 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 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207