MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improved engineering method for calculating the strength of the supporting areas of reinforced concrete elements

2018· article· en· W2900822747 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMATEC Web of Conferences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicStructural mechanics and materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocodeBearing capacityStructural engineeringReinforced concreteEuropean unionEuropean standardMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the results of experimental studies, empirical dependencies were obtained (obtained from the appropriate mathematical models). The advanced (refined) method of engineering calculation of express-estimation of the strength of sloping cross sections of elements of flexible reinforced concrete structures on the basis of comparative analysis of the obtained empirical dependencies and standard accepted methods in the world was developed (nine basic norms are taken: DSTU B.V.2.6-156:2010 (Ukraine), previously operating SNiP 2.03.01-84*, SNB 5.03.01-02 (Belarus), SR 63.13330.2012 (Russia), Eurocode 2, 2004 (European Union), ACI 318-M14 (USA), AIJ Code, 2007 (Japan), CSA 23.3-04 (Canada), DIN 1045-1 (Germany). The coefficient of variation of bearing capacity and accident ratio according to the results of calculations of standard methods are determined. Their comparative analysis is carried out and informative graphic figures are presented.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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