MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multilaminate Macromodel for Concrete Masonry: Formulation and Verification

2006· article· en· W2073679597 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryReinforcementStructural engineeringUnreinforced masonry buildingMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A macromodel was developed to predict the in-plane behavior of concrete masonry. In this multilaminate model, the masonry assemblage is replaced by an equivalent material which consists of a homogenous medium intersected by two sets of planes of weakness along the head and bed joints. Additionally, two sets of reinforcement, normal and parallel to bed joints are used when modeling reinforced masonry. The macrobehavior of the equivalent material is determined by smearing the influence of these planes of weakness and reinforcement sets (when present) to determine the global behavior of the model. Different failure surfaces are defined for each masonry component. Based on the order in which different components reach their failure surface, redistribution of stresses occurs and different possible modes of failure are predicted. The proposed model’s prediction of the response of unreinforced and reinforced masonry is verified by comparison with the experimental results of masonry panels subjected to different biaxial stress conditions with different reinforcement ratios and loading angles.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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