MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767904152 · doi:10.1680/jmacr.17.00033

Exploring the synergy of ECCs and SMAs in creating resilient civil infrastructure

2017· article· en· W2767904152 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed A.E.M. Ali, Moncef L. Nehdi

Bibliographic record

VenueMagazine of Concrete Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrofittingCivil infrastructureWork (physics)Homeland securityCatastrophic failureComputer scienceSmart materialConstructabilityDynamic loadingExplosive materialEngineeringForensic engineeringConstruction engineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme loading events such as blasts, impacts and earthquakes often lead to the partial or total collapse of reinforced-concrete structures, resulting in economic and human life losses. Civil engineers have therefore been seeking innovative materials and systems that would allow the design of resilient and smart structures that can withstand such catastrophic events. Recently, engineered cementitious composites (ECCs) and shape memory alloys (SMAs) have emerged as strong contenders in the production of smart and resilient structural systems. This paper examines recent research work into the performance of structural members produced with ECCs and/or SMAs for applications in new structures as well as in strengthening and retrofitting work. The constraints on wider implementation of these materials in structural applications are discussed. It is shown that the superior performance of SMA-reinforced ECC elements under static and dynamic loading could allow the development of novel resilient composites with exceptional impact performance to protect infrastructure of paramount importance for homeland security against explosive, dynamic and impact loading.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagazine of Concrete ResearchSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207