MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613480630 · doi:10.1201/9781003076131-24

Development of Canadian Standard for Building Construction using FRP Composites

2021· book-chapter· en· W2613480630 on OpenAlexaffabout
M.S. Cheung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticComposite materialMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper introduces the Canadian Standards Association document CSA-S806, “Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre Reinforced Polymers”. This new CSA standard is planned to be published in late 2000. The provisions in this standard address not only the design of new buildings, but also retrofit and strengthening of existing building components. The paper outlines the approach taken in the development of the standard, summarizes the information and decisions pertaining to design/retrofit provisions and principles, and touches on the material testing methodologies. Some relevant information relates to the Canadian building practices are also included in the annexes of this document. The contents of this standard may be divided in to 6 subject areas; basic limit states design principles, material testing procedures, design provisions for reinforced and prestressed components, repair and retrofit of existing components, strengthening earthquake deficient elements, and site preparation and construction procedures. The above 6 subject areas are presented in 11 chapters with the format and notations similar to the Canadian code of practices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.013

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207