MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166994620

콘크리트 충전 브릿지 플레이트(대골형 파형강판) 부재의 성능평가

2010· article· ko· W2166994620 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
심종성, 박철우, 김태수, 이형호, 강태성

Bibliographic record

Venue한국콘크리트학회논문집 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompressive strengthStructural engineeringArchFlexural strengthSafety factorCompression (physics)Arch bridgeBridge (graph theory)EngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current encased-concrete deep corrugated steel plate has an arch type plate structure, which is a compressive strength-dominant structure that has a small moment due to its arch shape. Therefore, it increases the strength against compression by adding reinforcements to make concrete-filling spaces for increasing the compressive strength and forming cross sections that contain reinforced concrete. In this study, the safety factor of the new-concept encased-concrete bridge plate member was evaluated by comparing the compressive strength obtained from the compressive tests, flexural tests and the design compressive strength determined by using the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC, 2003), which is a design standard for the encased-concrete bridge plate structures. The results of the safety factor evaluation using the design compressive strength and the test results showed that the safety factor was well above the appropriate value 2.0, which could be adjudged very conservative. If the safety factor based on this study results is considered and applied to the design, economical construction will be possible due to the reduced cross section and construction cost.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.009

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한국콘크리트학회논문집Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207