MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046854127 · doi:10.1520/jte100329

New Method for Testing Fiber-reinforced Polymer Rods Under Flexure

2006· article· en· W2046854127 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

VenueJournal of Testing and Evaluation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeSt. Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPultrusionFlexural strengthRodFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceThree point flexural testStructural engineeringComposite materialReinforcementTest methodFiberEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper provides a new test method to determine the flexural properties of FRP reinforcing rods for material specifications, research and development, quality assurance, and structural design and analysis. This test method specifies the requirements of four-point flexural tests on FRP rods used in place of steel reinforcement or prestressing tendon in concrete on the basis of the knowledge gained from research results. This test method follows the ASTM standard test methods with some modifications according to the intended purpose and easy realization of the tests. Furthermore, flexural verification tests have been conducted on six sizes of diameters of GFRP rods, from #3 to #8 and each having six specimens. The test results were discussed and compared with that obtained from the three-point flexural tests as specified by the ASTM standard test method for flexural properties of fiber reinforced pultruded plastic rods.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · 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