MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lateral Response Evaluation of Fiber-Reinforced Neoprene Seismic Isolators Utilized in an Unbonded Application

2008· article· en· W2049095680 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Toopchi‐Nezhad, Michael J. Tait, Robert G. Drysdale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeopreneStructural engineeringIsolatorBearing (navigation)StiffnessElastomerMaterials scienceDisplacement (psychology)Deformation (meteorology)Natural rubberComposite materialEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the experimentally obtained lateral response characteristics of model scale square fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolator (FREI) bearings, which are intended to mitigate seismic induced forces on ordinary low-rise buildings. The bearings consist of an unfilled soft neoprene compound as the elastomer material and bidirectional carbon fiber fabric as the reinforcement. The bearings have been employed in an unbonded application, which means they are not attached to the upper and lower platens of the test machine. This unbonded application results in a stable rollover deformation, which decreases the effective lateral stiffness of the bearings and maximizes their efficiency as a seismic isolator device. Lateral load–displacement hysteresis loops of the FREI bearings with unbonded application are generally found to be comparable to that of conventional high damped steel reinforced bearings. The adequacy of the bearings has been verified in conformance with provisions of ASCE in 2005.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations110
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207