MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wind Loading on Attached Canopies: Codification Study

2014· article· en· W2065781378 on OpenAlexaff
Jose Daniel Candelario, Ted Stathopoulos, Ioannis Zisis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyTerrainWind tunnelWind engineeringEnvironmental scienceScale modelMarine engineeringWind directionWind speedScale (ratio)MeteorologyStructural engineeringEngineeringAerospace engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wind tunnel study was performed to examine wind loads on canopies attached to the walls of low-rise buildings. A model of a building with an attached canopy of geometric scale of 1∶100 was constructed and tested in a simulated open terrain exposure. The attached canopy model was equipped with pressure taps at both upper and lower surfaces to allow for simultaneous monitoring of wind pressures and evaluation of the overall load. A total of 63 different building/attached canopy configurations were tested for 28 wind directions. Pressure and correlation coefficients were generated to provide a better understanding of how the wind-loading patterns at upper and lower surfaces of the attached canopy contribute to the net loading effect. Current design guidelines and building code and standard provisions are assessed and compared with the experimental results of the present study. The influence of the geometry of each configuration on the experimental net pressure coefficients was assessed and recommendations for design wind load standards and codes of practice are made.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207