Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steel structures have been used as a good construction method in high-rise building since the early 1970s in Korea. The main merits of the steel structures seem to have much better robust structural entities and more speedy construction period and a more cost competative than the conventional concrete ways. But the steel has property of a decreasing loadbearing capacity when it happens to expose to an unexpected fire condition. For a sustaining of structural stability in fire, structural elements such as beams, columns and structural floor-ceiling assemblies should protect from fire. Traditionally, the floor-ceiling assemblies have already been used in several construction types consisted of steel, concrete and brick. Especially, where the floor-ceiling assemblies apply the steel structure, the fire protection material for beam element should be sprayed so as to meet the requirement of building regulation on fire. Contrary to Korea, the U.S.A. and the other countries, the U.K. Canada, can apply the floor-ceiling assembly without additional fire protection materials to beam element any more provided the authorized design was applied. In order to evaluate the performance of fire resistance for T-Bar type of the floor-ceiling assembly, we conducted 3 fire tests with specimens consisted of the acoustic-tile membrane as a finishing and concrete floor with cellular steel deck and steel beam. From the fire tests we found out that the bare steel beam endured 2 hours and 3 hours for the assembly with 20mm thickness of fire protective material to structural beam.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".