MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325012686 · doi:10.1061/40699(2003)18

Integrated Computer-Based Approach for Conceptual Structural Design

2003· article· en· W2325012686 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual designComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Process (computing)Engineering design processScarcityDesign processWork (physics)Systems engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineeringWork in processHuman–computer interactionMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer programs for performing structural analysis and detail design calculations have been in the market and used by practitioners for several years. However, there is still a scarcity of computer programs available to assist properly engineers in the conceptual design of building structures. The explanation for this lies in the fact that during conceptual design the engineer's work flow is highly dependent on the amount, quality and type of information that is exchanged with the architect. This in turn affects the quality and effectiveness of the structural engineering feedback provided to the architect. This paper describes an approach that aims at enabling a two-way interaction between architects and structural engineers early on in the design process through computers, which will likely lead to improved overall building solutions.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.187 · 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