MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945839091 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.2241

Former Dominion Archives Building Seismic Upgrade Case Study

2017· article· en· W2945839091 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julien Koop, Samer Jabbour, Daniel Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsNordion (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryDominionArchEngineeringMasonry veneerStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringBasementSection (typography)GeologyCivil engineeringComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The former Dominion Archives building at 330 Sussex Drive in Ottawa, Canada is a three-storey historic stone masonry building that was built in two stages between 1904 and 1924. The perimeter masonry walls form the lateral load resisting system of the building; however, the walls of the 1904 section were in poor condition with soft and deteriorated mortar, the terra-cotta flat arch floors of the 1904 section did not form a proper diaphragm system, and the floor diaphragms were not adequately anchored to the perimeter walls. This case study will present the seismic upgrade and retrofit work that was undertaken to extend the life of the building, including an innovative solution to restore the structural integrity of deteriorated stone masonry walls, providing new lightweight reinforced concrete topping floor diaphragms in the 1904 section and connecting the concrete floor diaphragms to the historic masonry walls with stainless steel grouted anchors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207