MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184729465

Development and Research of Eccentrically Braced Frames with Replaceable Active Links

2014· article· en· W2184729465 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
AJ Fussell, KA Cowie, G. Charles Clifton, Nandor Mago

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchSpace (University of Auckland) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraced frameStructural engineeringEngineeringBraceFinite element methodFrame (networking)BracingMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ductile eccentrically braced frames designed in accordance with the New Zealand Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404, provide life safety during a design level or greater earthquake; however, the eccentrically braced frame active link may sustain significant damage through repeated inelastic deformation. This may necessitate postearthquake replacement of the active link. A bolted replaceable active link can be used to facilitate replacement after a strong earthquake, which reduces repair costs. New Zealand design guidance for the seismic design of steel eccentrically braced frames was first published in 1995 by the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association within HERA Report R4-76 and has been widely used in practice. This guidance has been recently updated and now includes seismic design procedures for eccentrically braced frames with replaceable links. This article covers the development and research of eccentrically braced frames with replaceable links. This includes discussions of the comprehensive research programme recently completed in Canada investigating the performance of eccentrically braced frames with replaceable links and finite element analysis undertaken by the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, to verify the design procedure for eccentrically braced frames with replaceable links. 1

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchSpace (University of Auckland)Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207