MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018046485 · doi:10.1139/l10-096

Analysis and design of steel plate walls: experimental evaluation

2010· article· en· W2018046485 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsIntecsea (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringInfillStiffnessWeldingYield (engineering)Materials scienceColumn (typography)Beam (structure)EngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the effectiveness of the Modified Plate–Frame Interaction (M-PFI) model is evaluated by comparing its outcomes against those from experimental results obtained from a number of steel plate walls (SPWs) tested at different universities. As a result of the comparison, the M-PFI model was found to provide satisfactory predictions for SPW specimens constructed with steel plates welded to column and beam members. The M-PFI model was able to predict the initial stiffness, as well as to evaluate whether the boundary members of the SPW have sufficient capacity to allow for the infill plate to yield entirely. However, the model was found to underestimate the ultimate capacity of the SPW system mainly because, among other reasons, the material model used for its underlying theory is the elastic – perfectly plastic material model.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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