MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stability Capacity of Metal Plate Connected Wood Truss Assemblies

2009· article· en· W2168380828 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaobin Song, Frank Lam, Hao Huang, Minjuan He

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBracingTrussStructural engineeringBucklingStiffnessFlexural rigidityFlexural strengthSlip (aerodynamics)Materials scienceEngineeringBrace

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the critical buckling load and lateral bracing force of metal plate connected wood truss assemblies. Material property tests—including the modulus of elasticity of dimension lumber, flexural stiffness of plywood panels, and load-slip relationship of nail connection—and full-scale tests of individual trusses and truss assemblies were conducted. The critical buckling load and lateral bracing force were recorded. The continuous lateral bracing, the load sharing and distribution effects, and the residual deformation at the metal plate connections were studied for their influence on the system’s stability performance. The adequacy of the 2% rule of thumb, which is used by some design engineers for lateral bracing system design, was also discussed by comparing to the test results of the lateral bracing forces. The generated database can be used as input parameters and for verification for numerical analysis models and therefore contributes to the improvement of the design methods in the long term.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207