MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135411049 · doi:10.1002/suco.201200060

Design for SLS according to <i>fib</i> Model Code 2010

2013· article· en· W2135411049 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

VenueStructural Concrete · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)Serviceability (structure)CrackingStructural engineeringLimitingEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper provides an overview of serviceability specifications given by the fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 (fib MC2010 [1]). First, the reasons behind crack control and deflection control are discussed, then specific design rules are provided. Simple rules as well as detailed models are also presented. Numerical examples are provided in order to assist in the application of the design recommendations for crack control and deflection control (reinforced and prestressed concrete elements). Simple rules mean indirect control of cracking or deflections without calculations. Indirect crack control may include limitation of stresses and selection of maximum bar diameter or maximum bar spacing. Indirect deflection control normally means limiting the span‐to‐depth ratio. Detailed models are based on physical and mathematical approaches to cracking and deflections. The design crack width is expressed as the maximum bond transfer length multiplied by the mean strain between cracks. Deflection analysis can be provided by integrating curvatures or by using a simplified or refined method. Vibrations and numerical modelling of cracking are also briefly discussed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.217 · 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