MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design practice for tall buildings in Taiwan

2000· article· en· W2036121283 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

VenueThe Structural Design of Tall Buildings · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode of practiceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringBuilding codeCode (set theory)Seismic analysisCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringBuilding designForensic engineeringRelevance (law)Computer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a review of the Taiwanese building codes and their relevance to the performance of tall buildings during the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake. The 1982 edition of the Taiwanese code as supplemented in 1991 is discussed in more detail, since very few of the buildings subjected to this earthquake were designed in accordance with the more recent 1997 edition of the code. The recommended design lateral forces and procedures in Taiwanese codes appear to be similar to, and sometimes more conservative than, their United States counterparts. However, the construction practice as observed in our evaluation of damaged buildings exhibited a general disregard for the long-established seismic design and detailing principles. It seems that lack of construction supervision and inspection as well as adverse utilization of some loop-holes in the building code significantly contributed to the poor design and construction practice that resulted in some of the most extraordinary tall building failures ever observed. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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