Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of self-tapping screws with continuous threads in the joint area as a reinforcement to avoid splitting of timber members is studied. A theoretical model is developed to calculate the stress distribution around a pin-loaded hole in a timber joint, to predict brittle failure modes in bolted connections and to calculate the load in the reinforcing screws. Laboratory experiments on reinforced and non-reinforced timber joints with 15,9-mm bolts have shown good agreement with the model predictions. En este artículo se estudia el uso de tornillos autoperforantes como refuerzo para evitar rupturas frágiles en uniones de madera. Se presenta un modelo teórico para calcular la distribución de esfuerzos alrededor de un perno en una unión de madera, predecir las rupturas frágiles y evaluar el esfuerzo en los tornillos autoperforantes. Los experimentos de laboratorio con uniones de madera, con pernos de 15,9 mm de diámetro, reforzadas y no reforzadas mostraron la efectividad del modelo teórico propuesto.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".