MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245278037

GFRP 보강근의 설계지침(안)

2008· article· ko· W2245278037 on OpenAlex
심종성, 박영환, 최동욱, 박석균, 박철우, 오홍섭

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue한국콘크리트학회 2008년도 가을 학술발표회 논문집 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticEngineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GFRP 보강근은 최근 철근 대체 보강근으로서의 관심과 연구가 활발히 진행되고 있다. 특히, 장기내구성 콘크리트 구조물을 구성하는데 있어 핵심재료로 각광받고 있다. 그러나 GFRP 보강근은 기존철근 보강근과는 달리 제작방식 및 기계적 특성이 상이하여 실제 건설현장에서 사용하기 위해서는 설계 이론, 코드 및 지침등이 GFRP 보강근의 특성에 맞게 개발되고 제안되어야 한다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 ACI318, ACI440.IR, CSA S806 및ISIS Canada design manual을 분석하여 국내 적용 가능한 GFRP 보강근의 설계지침을 제안하고자 한다. 분석결과, GFRP 보강근의 불확실성을 충분히 반영할 수 있기 위해서는 한계상태설계법이 적합한 설계방법으로 분석되었으며, 따라서 본 연구에서는 ISIS Canada design manual을 준용하여 GFRP 보강근의 설계지침을 제안하였으며, 이를 ACI 설계식들과 장단점을 비교분석하였다.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.011

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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