MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058850173 · doi:10.2495/mc070251

Flexural bond strength of clay brick masonry

2007· article· en· W2058850173 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. G. Yuen, Shelley L. Lissel

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on engineering sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrickFlexural strengthBond strengthMasonryMortarMaterials scienceCuring (chemistry)Brick and mortarComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringComputer scienceAdhesive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intent of a new parametric study at the University of Calgary is to investigate the influence of several factors on the flexural bond strength of clay brick masonry.These factors include the absorption characteristics of the brick units, and varying construction and curing methods.A preliminary study was performed with a series of clay brick prisms built from different types of brick with various absorption characteristics, and cured at different conditions.The bond wrench test was used to determine the flexural bond strength between the mortar and brick.The results showed high variation, but did provide some indication of which factors may be contributing to the highly variable findings.The objectives of this continuing study are to eliminate the possible parameters that were causing the highly variable results, and to determine correlations between brick properties and bond strength.The results are presented in this paper.Further research will be ongoing to establish a more definite relationship between the various parameters and bond strength and to investigate effects of mortar, and curing conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on engineering sciencesSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207