MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131989116 · doi:10.1080/13632460509350547

BEHAVIOUR OF REHABILITATED STRUCTURAL WALLS

2005· article· en· W2131989116 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 Earthquake Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringDissipationShear wallFibre-reinforced plasticDuctility (Earth science)HingeMaterials sciencePlastic hingeShear (geology)Bending momentBendingGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringComposite materialCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program for identifying the causes of failures in structural walls under earthquake loading and investigating potential rehabilitation schemes was undertaken. Large-scale models of the plastic hinge region of the walls were tested. An innovative test setup that provides the possibility of controlling the ratio of the shear force to both bending moment and axial load was constructed. A control wall was tested and failed prematurely in shear reproducing the failure observed in the field. Two different rehabilitation schemes to improve the behaviour of the wall using biaxial fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets were designed to prevent the shear failure. To improve the ductility, the end column elements of the walls were confined using anchored FRP. The two schemes were tested and proved to be effective in increasing shear strength, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity of the walls.

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 score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.196 · 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