MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023893280 · doi:10.1193/1.1849774

Drift Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Reinforcement

2005· article· en· W2023893280 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsShear (geology)Transverse planeGeotechnical engineeringReinforcementStructural engineeringShear strength (soil)Critical resolved shear stressReinforced concreteGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringShear rateComposite materialRheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement are vulnerable to shear failure during seismic response. Shear strength models, modeling the degradation of shear strength with increasing displacement ductility demand, have been widely used to evaluate the interstory drift capacity of such columns. The application of a shear strength model to determine the drift capacities for a database of 50 shear‐critical columns demonstrates significant inaccuracies with such a method. An empirical drift capacity model based on the shear‐critical column database provides a better estimate of the interstory drift at shear failure. The new drift capacity model identifies the most critical parameters affecting the drift capacity of shear‐critical columns, namely, transverse reinforcement ratio, shear stress demand, and axial load ratio.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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