MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977510833 · doi:10.1186/s10086-019-1828-y

The bending properties of bamboo strand board I-beams

2019· article· en· W2977510833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuhui Sun, Zehui Jiang, Huanrong Liu, Zhengjun Sun, Changhua Fang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wood Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBamboo properties and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Centre for Bamboo and Rattan
KeywordsBambooFlangeStiffnessMaterials scienceStructural engineeringDuctility (Earth science)Composite materialBendingBending stiffnessUltimate loadFailure mode and effects analysisFlexural strengthEngineeringFinite element methodCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Novel bamboo I-beams fabricated from bamboo oriented strand boards as structural members were investigated. Bending tests were performed to determine the stiffness and strength properties of bamboo I-beams. The results showed that the stiffness and strength properties exceeded the requirements of APA EWS Performance-Rated I-joist in PRI-400-2012. Increasing section depth had obvious effect on the ultimate load capacity, stiffness and failure mode of bamboo I-beams. Moreover, the bending properties of bamboo I-beams were also affected by flange materials, joint type in web, and reinforcement of flange finger joints. The strain measurements indicated that the plane assumption could be applied to the bamboo I-beams. Based on the stiffness calculation formula of I-beams recommended in Canadian standard and the moment capacity calculation formula corresponding to each failure mode of I-beams, the calculated stiffness and ultimate load capacity of specimens were relatively close to the experimental results.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wood ScienceSame topicBamboo properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207