MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317471056 · doi:10.1061/41171(401)59

Development of Seismic Design Provisions for Steel Sheet Sheathed Shear Walls

2011· article· en· W2317471056 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Colin A. Rogers, N. Balh, C. Ong-Tone, Iman Shamim, J. DaBreo

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2011 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSeismic analysisShear wallStructural engineeringShear (geology)Seismic loadingIncremental Dynamic AnalysisEngineeringDesign processGeologyWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seismic design provisions for use with steel sheathed cold-formed steel framed shear walls have been proposed for inclusion in the National Building Code of Canada with the associated detailing and design procedures found in the AISI S213 North American Lateral Design Standard for cold-formed steel structures. The design procedure, including recommended seismic force modification factors (R-values), was based on the results of an extensive series of monotonic, reversed cyclic and dynamic tests, as well as non-linear time history dynamic analyses of representative building structures. An approach adopted from the FEMA P695 incremental dynamic analysis procedure is being used to evaluate and improve the seismic design procedure. An overview of the process followed in the conception of the seismic design provisions is provided in this paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2011Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207