MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Static Design Recommendations for Slotted End HSS Connections in Tension

2009· article· en· W2126151178 on OpenAlexafffund
Gilberto Martinez-Saucedo, Jeffrey A. Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsTension (geology)Connection (principal bundle)Structural engineeringCurrent (fluid)Focus (optics)Section (typography)Work (physics)Computer scienceLimit (mathematics)Square (algebra)EngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsGeometryElectrical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of slotted end hollow structural section connections in tension, according to the philosophy behind contemporary specifications [ANSI/AISC 360-05, CAN/CSA-S16-01, and EN 1993-1-8; 2005 (E)], requires checking several limit states to determine the connection capacity. From published data for these types of connections by the writers and other international researchers, a review and analysis of all prior work in this field has been made, with a focus on the current AISC specification. As a result, a new procedure for determining the capacity of such connections in tension is presented, which is shown to be a significant improvement over current international design provisions. Moreover, it is also shown to be applicable to elliptical, square, and rectangular hollow sections.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207