MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2731113823 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2017-0266

Dynamic characteristics of light-frame wood buildings

2018· article· en· W2731113823 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ghazanfarah Hafeez, Ghasan Doudak, Ghyslaine McClure

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringShear wallFinite element methodFrame (networking)VibrationStiffnessEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with dynamic field testing of light-frame wood buildings with wood based shear walls. The primary objective of the investigation is to provide an estimate of the fundamental period of such buildings, through field testing and numerical modeling. An experimental program is established to perform ambient vibration testing on 41 light-frame wood buildings of both regular and irregular layouts, located in moderate to high seismic zones in different regions in Canada. The research objective is to develop a reliable method of estimating the building period of light-frame wood buildings and develop an accurate expression for building period estimate based on field testing and numerical modeling. The study found that significant scatter is observed in the measured data when plotted as a function of building height. Finite element (FE) models were developed and compared with the natural periods of the buildings with reasonable accuracy. Using the validated FE models to examine different commonly used stiffness models showed that in general current analysis approaches overestimate the building period.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicWood Treatment and Properties→French-language works237,207→