MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795910194 · doi:10.1002/suco.201700242

Strength of laps and anchorages of plain surface bars

2018· article· en· W2795910194 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Concrete · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringStructural engineeringBar (unit)BondBond strengthGeotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialAdhesiveLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although plain round or square section reinforcement is no longer used in new construction, there are many older structures still in service built with such bars. As a consequence of the increasing need for assessment of existing construction, there is a continuing need for information on their performance. Research into plain surface bars essentially ceased when ribbed bars became the norm, and plain bars have consequently been bypassed in the developments in the understanding of bond since 1960. An analysis of test data on bond of plain surface bars is presented, and an empirical expression for bond resistance is derived, which parallels that for ribbed bars in the fib Model Code 2010. The analysis finds various parameters that show marked differences in their influence on the bond resistance of ribbed and plain bars. In particular, the strong influence of cover ratio for plain bars observed in the test data was unexpected. A comparison with the provisions of the fib Model Code 90 demonstrates that, in some situations, the margin of safety against failure of straight plain bar anchorages may be too low.

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)0.000
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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