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 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 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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
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