MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118751258 · doi:10.1139/l07-128

Damage as a measure for earthquake-resistant design of masonry structures: Slovenian experienceThis article is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue on Masonry.

2007· article· en· W2118751258 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miha Tomaževič

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringEurocodeEarthquake shaking tableDisplacement (psychology)Reduction (mathematics)Structural systemSeismic analysisEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of lateral resistance tests of masonry walls and shaking table tests of a number of models of masonry buildings of various structural configurations, built with various materials in different construction systems, have been analyzed to find a correlation between the occurrence of different grades of damage to structural elements, characteristic limit states, and lateral displacement capacity. On the basis of correlation between acceptable level of damage and displacement capacity, it has been shown that the range of elastic force reduction factor values used to determine the design seismic loads for different masonry construction systems proposed by the recently adopted European standard Eurocode 8 EN-1998-1 for earthquake resistant design are adequate. By using the recommended design values, satisfactory performance of the masonry buildings that have been analyzed may be expected when subjected to design intensity earthquakes with respect to both the no-collapse and damage-limitation requirements.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations75
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207