MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776133982 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2016-0390

Near-field explosion effects on reinforced concrete columns: an experimental investigation

2017· article· en· W2776133982 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringReinforced concreteWork (physics)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explosion effects on structures have been an area of active research over the past decades. This is due to the increasing number of terrorists’ action against infrastructures. Although significant amount of work is continuing on the effects of explosions on infrastructures, experimental work involving live explosion testing is limited. Moreover, experimental testing of reinforced concrete (RC) columns subjected to near-field explosions is scant. This paper presents results of an experimental program designed to investigate the effects of near-field explosions on RC columns with different tie spacing and at different scaled distances. The results show that the response of columns is strongly dependent on scaled distance. As the scaled distance increased the severity of damage reduced; seismic columns showed better response. The effect of axial loading was also observed to increase the level of damage on reinforced concrete columns at the axial load level and blast loads considered in the test program.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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