MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129595610 · doi:10.1193/071811eqs179m

Seismic Response of a Concrete Frame with Weak Beam‐Column Joints

2013· article· en· W2129595610 on OpenAlex
Beyhan Bayhan, Jack P. Moehle, Soheil Yavari, Kenneth J. Elwood, S. H. Lin, Chiun‐Lin Wu, Shyh‐Jiann Hwang

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

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringJoint (building)Beam (structure)Column (typography)Earthquake shaking tableFrame (networking)Nonlinear systemTransverse planeReinforced concreteEngineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPhysicsConnection (principal bundle)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reduced‐scale, planar, two‐story by two‐bay reinforced concrete frame with weak beam‐column joints was subjected to earthquake simulations on a shaking table. The beam‐column joints did not contain transverse reinforcement, as is typical in older construction designed without attention to detail for ductile response. A series of linear and nonlinear analytical models of the frame were developed in accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers standards and subjected to the input base motions. The goodness of fit between analytical and measured results depended on the details of the analytical model. Reasonably accurate reproduction of the measured response was obtained only by modeling the inelastic responses of both columns and beam‐column joints. The results confirm the importance of modeling nonlinear joint behavior in older concrete buildings with deficient beam‐column joints.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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