MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examination of Load Resistance in Window Glass Design

2010· article· en· W2071971027 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architectural Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMinistry of Education, Science and TechnologyCanada Research ChairsInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsWind engineeringStructural engineeringLoad resistanceLaminated glassEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The glass failure prediction model has been used as a calculation method for the load resistance (LR) of glass specified in North American design codes. However, because of the technology available, this model has only been experimentally proven under ramp loading. The model also has several defects, which have been pointed out in recent years, some of which may originate from this insufficient experimental validation. Thanks to the newly developed technology at the University of Western Ontario, glass strength modeling was revisited with sufficient experimental results, including fluctuating wind loads of long time duration. In addition, the value of LR specified in the current North American design codes was examined in light of several assumed parameters used in its calculation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
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