MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010861328 · doi:10.1680/stbu.2008.161.6.325

Simplified fire design for composite hollow-section columns

2008· article· en· W2010861328 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocodeFire resistanceStructural engineeringContext (archaeology)Finite element methodSection (typography)Composite numberEngineeringForensic engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of Eurocode 4 Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures, Part 1-2: Structural fire design, this paper proposes a new simplified design method to determine the fire resistance of columns with concrete-filled steel hollow sections. This method was introduced into the French national annex of the Eurocode in October 2007 in place of the informative Annex H. After mentioning several theoretical shortcomings of Annex H and its lack of accuracy leading to unsafe design of columns with usual slenderness, an advanced finite-element model already developed by the current authors is briefly presented. A comparison with fire tests carried out in France, Germany and Canada illustrates the good accuracy of the model. The new design method is then explained progressively.

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 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.187 · 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