MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2563351242

STR-942: PUNCHING SHEAR OF SELF-CONSOLIDATING TWO WAY SLABS

2016· article· en· W2563351242 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hossameldeen Bakr, Amgad Hussein, Assem A. A. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGeologyPunchingShear (geology)Geotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialPetrology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an experimental program conducted to investigate the punching shear behaviour of self-consolidating (SCC) two-way slabs, and the influence of using different sizes of coarse aggregate and slab thickness on this behaviour. For this purpose, a total of six slabs were tested. Two groups of labs with targeted compressive strength of 30 MPa were used; for group A, 10 mm coarse aggregate size was used, and 20 mm coarse aggregate size was used for the slabs in group B. Each group consisted of three slabs with different thicknesses of 150, 200, and 250 mm. The results revealed a significant effect of slab thickness and size of coarse aggregate. The failure criterion proposed by (Muttoni 2008) based on the slab rotation was used to predict the tested slabs capacities. In addition, comparison with other codes of practice (CSA A23.3-04, ACI 318-11, BS8110-97, and EC2) was carried out. These codes except the EC2 can be safely used to check the punching shear capacity of SCC slabs without the need of any modification to the equations used.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete→French-language works237,207→