Load factor calibration for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada: Statistics of loads and load effects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) will adopt a companion-action format for load combinations and specify wind and snow loads based on their 50 year return period values. This paper summarizes statistics for dead load, live load due to use and occupancy, snow load, and wind load that have been adopted for calibration, and a companion paper presents the calibration itself. A new survey of typical construction tolerances indicates that statistics for dead load widely adopted for building code calibration are adequate unless the dead load is dominated by thin, cast-in-place concrete toppings. Unique statistics for live load due to use and occupancy are derived that pertain specifically to the live load reduction factor equation used in the NBCC. Statistics for snow and wind loads are normalized using the 50 year values that will be specified in the 2005 NBCC. New statistics are determined for the factors that transform wind speeds and ground snow depths into wind and snow loads on structures.Key words: buildings, code calibration, companion action, dead loads, live loads, load combinations, load factors, reliability, safety, snow loads, wind loads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it