Design Guideline for Rounded Dovetail Connections
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rounded Dovetail Connections (RDC) are a relatively new method for connecting structural members. The use of RDC in timber construction has significantly increased in Europe, with the most common application being the connection of a joist to a beam or a beam to a girder. A number of experimental studies on RDC provided valuable insight into the structural performance of this versatile connection [Kreuzinger and Spengler, 1999; Blass and Saal, 1999; Hochstrate, 2000; Bobacz, 2002; Tannert and Lam, 2006; Tannert et al., 2007]. The load transfer mechanism of RDC is governed by its geometric features. A revival of interest in timber frame buildings in the United States occurred during the 1970s and since that time, has led to growth in the timber framing industry to keep up with demand for timber frame structures [O'Connell and Smith, 1999] and carpentry connections are being used in a growing number of timber buildings [Schmidt and Scholl, 2000]. But the acceptance of carpentry connections in the North American structural engineering and architectural community is affected by a lack of design values and provisions in building codes [Bamford, 2003]. Engineers and architects indicate that there is a diverse demand and need for guidance in designing connections in wood construction throughout North America, and existing design codes need to be expanded and updated to reflect the acceptance and use of modern wood connections [Snow et al., 2006]. Nevertheless, the Rounded Dovetail Connection is increasingly being used, driving the demand and need for guidance in designing such connections in timber construction throughout North America.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it