Design concepts and principles for tall multi-storey superstructures incorporating timber frameworks
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
There is clear interest from designers in at least Europe, North America and The Antipodes in using timber as a primary construction material for relatively tall multi-storey building superstructures. However, contemporary timber design standards are oriented towards providing information best suited to design of quite low-rise building superstructures (circa less than 20m tall) for which relatively relaxed structural engineering approaches are deemed acceptable. Discussion here relates to design of superstructures having up to twelve storeys and around 80m heights. Details addressed include recommendations developed under the auspices of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering as part of draft IABSE Structural Engineering Document 13 “Structural Use of Timber in Tall Multi-storey Buildings” scheduled to be published in 2013. Mention is also made of the possible creation of special -- Extra Normal Applications -- provisions in the Canadian timber design code that would advise engineers how to approach design of building superstructures with characteristics not sensibly similar to characteristics of traditional timber superstructures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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