MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936045964 · doi:10.29173/mocs38

The merits of varying forms of mass timber products for offsite and modular construction

2018· article· en· W2936045964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Hairstans, Ryan E. Smith, Peter D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development Fund
KeywordsModular designWork (physics)Resource (disambiguation)EngineeringQuality assuranceQuality (philosophy)Construction engineeringArchitectural engineeringCivil engineeringComputer scienceOperations managementMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass timber is a family of Solid Laminate Timber Systems (SLTS) formed from smaller sections of timber connected by glue, mechanical fixings, moisture movement or a combination of methods. These products, which include Structural Composite Lumber, GluLam, Cross Lam, Nail Lam and Dowel Lam (or Brettstapel), have over the past two decades seen an extraordinary upsurge in use internationally. This global phenomenon has been driven by a greater emphasis on the sustainable use of renewable resources and by significant technological developments in the manufacture of SLTS. This research paper considers the merits of each of these products, their manufacturing processes and the corresponding quality assurance requirements necessary for successful project delivery. The paper describes the advantages and barriers to the use of the mass timber and provides an overview of the various aspects to be considered during design for offsite and modular construction. The work presented also provides case studies of how these products have been researched and utilised into live projects in the UK utilising local resource resulting in the formation of new supply chain arrangements. The work further explains the advantages of the respective systems for the given application including information on species selection, connection systems employed and the necessary onsite and offsite management approaches deployed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit ProceedingsSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207