MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167232623 · doi:10.3151/jact.2.289

Crack Shear-Slip in Reinforced Concrete Elements

2004· article· en· W2167232623 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 Advanced Concrete Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)Shear (geology)Structural engineeringReinforced concreteMaterials scienceFailure mode and effects analysisSlip line fieldGeotechnical engineeringGeologyComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A calculation procedure is described for estimating crack shear stresses and crack slip displacements from average strain measurements made on reinforced concrete panels. Several series of panels, previously tested, are examined and crack shear-slip data are extracted. These data are compared against the predictions of previously developed crack slip models, as well as against an alternative constitutive model proposed herein. Reasonable correlation is found between experimental and calculated values, particularly at near-ultimate load conditions. It is then shown that including crack shear slip behaviour in a computational model results in improved accuracy in terms of predicted load-deformation response and ultimate load capacity for reinforced concrete elements such as panels, beams and shear walls. Further, it is shown that rigorously accounting for crack slip displacements results in a better representation of various subtle aspects of behaviour, such as the failure mode and the capacity of elements to deform and redistribute load.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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