MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051592596 · doi:10.3992/jgb.1.1.63

Compressive Testing and Analysis of Plastered Straw Bales

2006· article· en· W2051592596 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Vardy, Colin MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Green Building · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthStrawStructural engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The structural performance of plastered straw bales under compressive loading is extremely important when considering the suitability of plastered straw bales as a construction material. Most currently available results do not investigate how different construction methods and practices can affect the strength of a plastered bale. The experiments discussed in this paper illustrate how the strength of the plaster, the thickness of the plaster and the orientation of the bale itself can affect the strength of the plastered bale. It was found that the bales plastered flat were 36% stronger than those plastered on edge. In addition it was found that although the plaster strength does affect the strength of the plastered bale, it does not have as significant an impact as the plaster thickness. It was also found that nearly all plastered bales tested had higher strengths than would be required in typical residential construction. The strengths were found to be in the same range as the values reported in the existing literature. The plastered bale modulus was found to be highly variable and un-predictable.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Green BuildingSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207