MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335020527 · doi:10.1061/41031(341)245

Changing the Home Building Paradigm of the Gulf South through Education

2009· article· en· W2335020527 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Taylor, Dennis L. Pitts, Jeffrey B. Stone, Sam Nelson, Paul Bove, W. David Franklin

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2009 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormProduct (mathematics)Architectural engineeringFrame (networking)LaunchedBusinessBuilding codeEngineeringForensic engineeringMeteorologyTelecommunicationsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, homes and other structures in the southern Gulf States of the US suffered considerable damage and loss through the ravages of hurricanes and windstorms. The American Forest & Paper Association's (AF&PA's) Wood Frame Construction Manual (WFCM) and other building code provisions sought to remedy the situation through regulation to effectively change the way these structures located in high wind and hurricane prone regions were designed and constructed. A significant education program over a number of years launched by the insurance, wood, and homebuilding industry has resulted in far fewer homes with high wind damage, millions in dollars of savings, and significantly less disruption of people's lives as these storms become more commonplace today. Savvy home consumers and building owners in the south today know what wind resistant construction is, and increasingly demand it in a newly built product. This paper briefly describes what the WFCM is, educational tools developed, the training effort extended, and finally the beneficial results that realized.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2009Same topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207