MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020026936 · doi:10.1061/41171(401)98

Using Failure Case Studies to Teach Reinforced Concrete Design

2011· article· en· W2020026936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Norbert Delatte

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2011 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPrecast concreteApartmentDemolitionReinforced concreteArchitectural engineeringEngineeringBuilding codeForensic engineeringStructural engineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of failures, particularly in a design course, can help teach students how to ensure the satisfactory performance of buildings and bridges. Some of the shear design provisions in the current ACI 318 Building Code can be traced back to two collapses of Air Force warehouses in the mid-1950s. Three building collapses in the 1970s and 1980s showed the importance of punching shear. There is also much to be learned from reinforced concrete building performance under extreme conditions, such as the terrorist attacks on the Oklahoma City Murrah Building and the Pentagon (9/11). Another classic case is the collapse of a major section of the Ronan Point apartment towers in the UK in 1968, illustrating the need to properly tie precast building elements together. The relatively recent collapse of the Laval, Quebec concrete bridge abutments in Canada shows the importance of providing continuity of reinforcement.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2011Same topicConstruction Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207