MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144676370 · doi:10.1139/l11-122

Experimental study of concrete masonry infills bounded by steel frames

2012· article· en· W2144676370 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Yi Liu, Sandra Soon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringBounded functionSteel frameForensic engineeringGeologyMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program was conducted to investigate the behavior and capacity of concrete masonry infills bounded by steel frames. Ten concrete masonry infilled steel frame specimens as well as one bare frame specimen were tested to failure under an in-plane lateral loading applied at the frame top beam level. The parameters considered in this paper included the aspect ratio, extent of grouting, opening of the infill and frame-to-infill stiffness ratio as reflected by varying the orientation of the frame column. The effect of each parameter on the failure mode, ultimate load, and stiffness of specimens is presented and discussed. Test results were then used to assess the efficacy of equations for the design of masonry infills suggested in the current design standards of both Canada and United States. The results show that the current Canadian design guidelines provide a markedly conservative design of masonry infills whereas the American design standard gives an improved estimate of infill stiffness and ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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