MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064023531 · doi:10.1139/l02-048

Background information for some of the proposed earthquake design provisions for the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada

2003· article· en· W2064023531 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ronald H. DeVall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding codeCode (set theory)Key (lock)Path (computing)Seismic analysisComputer scienceBuilding designStructural engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringProgramming languageComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many changes proposed for the Earthquake Design Provisions of the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Among them are requirements for complete load paths, separation of stiff nonstructural elements, and the introduction of definitions of irregular structures and special design requirements associated with these irregularities. A new requirement for direction of loading is introduced, along with requirements for elements common to more than one lateral load resisting system. The effects of displacements are emphasized throughout the document, and revised provisions for drift limits are proposed. Revisions to the importance factor that integrate it into the proposed revised format for Part 4, Structural design, of the NBCC are given. Background information is presented.Key words: load path importance factor, irregular structures, direction of loading, special requirements, drift limits.

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)0.015
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2930.087

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207