MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569527345 · doi:10.14359/51689457

Conventional and High-Strength Hooked Bars—Part 2: Data Analysis

2017· article· en· W2569527345 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

VenueACI Structural Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersElectric Power Research InstituteCharles Pankow Foundation
KeywordsForensic engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical equations are developed to characterize the anchorage strength of hooked bars. The equations are based on tests of 245 simulated beam-column joint specimens with two hooked bars: 146 with confining reinforcement and 99 without. Bar stresses at failure for specimens used in the analysis ranged from 30,800 to 144,100 psi (212 to 994 MPa), and concrete compressive strengths ranged from 2570 to 16,200 psi (17.7 to 112 MPa). For the specimens analyzed, hooked bar anchorage strength was proportional to concrete compressive strength raised to the 0.29 power. For confining reinforcement parallel to and located within eight or 10 bar diameters of the straight portion of the hooked bar, the contribution to anchorage strength was proportional to the area of confining reinforcement; for confining reinforcement perpendicular to the straight portion of the bar, more legs of the confining reinforcement contributed to anchor strength, but each leg made a smaller contribution.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.272
Teacher spread0.248 · 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