MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331628780 · doi:10.1061/40971(310)13

Load and Resistance Factor Design of Strip Footings

2008· article· en· W2331628780 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoCongress 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance FactorsFoundation (evidence)Reliability (semiconductor)Bearing capacityStructural engineeringReliability engineeringLoad resistanceGeotechnical engineeringFactor of safetyLoad factorEngineeringFunction (biology)Load bearingComputer scienceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) approach for the bearing capacity design of a strip footing. The load factors used are as specified by the National Building Code of Canada. The resistance factors required to achieve a certain acceptable failure probability are estimated as a function of the spatial variability of the soil as well as by the level of "understanding" of the soil properties in the vicinity of the foundation. The analytical results are validated by simulation. The results are primarily intended to aid the development of the next generation of reliability-based geotechnical design codes, but can also be used to guide current designs.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.172 · 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