MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2759007368

High capacity connections using timber rivets: From theory to practice

2014· article· en· W2759007368 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pouyan Zarnani, Pierre Quenneville

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivetStructural engineeringStiffnessBrittlenessEngineeringConnection (principal bundle)Engineered woodJoint (building)Materials scienceComposite materialCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a structural wood connection providing high load transfer, joint stiffness, and ease of manufacturing led to the invention of the timber rivets. Timber rivets are hardened steel nails with a rectangular cross section used in steel-timber-steel connections. Rivets are already part of the Canadian CSA-O86 and American NDS wood standards. However, there is no closed-form solution for the strength prediction of this type of connection under brittle failure mode as a result of wood rupture. Also, the standards restrict the use of rivets to specific configurations and for glulam and sawn timber of some limited species. A design approach is presented which allows the practitioners to predict the connection capacity associated with different brittle wood failure mechanisms under either longitudinal or transverse loadings. An extensive testing regime has been conducted at the University of Auckland and the results verified the proposal and proved its reliability. A design guide was also developed for timber rivets in Australasian engineered timber products. Timber rivets have since been used in different timber structures in New Zealand.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWood Treatment and Properties→French-language works237,207→