MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wind Loading on Attached Canopies: Codification Study

2014· article· en· W2065781378 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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