MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058779711 · doi:10.1139/t10-053

Consequence factors in the ultimate limit state design of shallow foundations

2011· article· en· W2058779711 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gordon A. Fenton, D. V. Griffiths, Olaide Ojomo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)Dalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLimit state designResistance FactorsReliability (semiconductor)Limit (mathematics)Safety factorReliability engineeringLoad factorFoundation (evidence)Shallow foundationStructural engineeringResistance (ecology)Factor of safetyStructural loadEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringBearing capacityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability-based design of shallow foundations is generally implemented via a load and resistance factor design methodology embedded in a limit state design framework. For any particular limit state, the design proceeds by ensuring that the factored resistance equals or exceeds the factored load effects. Load and resistance factors are determined to ensure that the resulting design is sufficiently safe. Load factors are typically prescribed in structural codes and take into account load uncertainty. Factors applied to resistance depend on both uncertainty in the resistance (accounted for by a resistance factor) and desired target reliability (accounted for by a newly introduced consequence factor). This paper concentrates on how the consequence factor can be defined and specified to adjust the target reliability of a shallow foundation designed to resist bearing capacity failure.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207