MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment, Reinforcement and Monitoring of Timber Structures – COST FP1101

2013· article· en· W2060931346 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bohumil Kasal

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Structural Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsAction (physics)Action planWork (physics)ReinforcementEngineeringPlan (archaeology)Construction engineeringCost controlRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessOperations managementStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringManagementEconomicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the goals, work plan, organization and results of the COST Action FP 1001 Assessment, Reinforcement and Monitoring of Timber Structures. 21 European countries with over 100 experts participate in the COST Action that started in 2012. The work of the COST FP 1101 is coordinated with the COST FP1004 "Enhance Mechanical properties of Timber, Engineered Wood Products and Timber Structures." This conference is one of the results of the COST action.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced materials researchSame topicCivil and Structural Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207