MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014513908 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0323

Evaluation of the interstorey drift performance of timber beam-hanger connection systems

2020· article· en· W3014513908 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Harrison Leach, Colin MacDougall, Kyle Tousignant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringBeam (structure)Shear (geology)Forensic engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a study on pre-engineered steel and aluminum, nominally “pinned”, bolted-plate (BP), staggered dovetail (S-DT), and dovetail prototype (DTP) beam-hanger connection systems for glue-laminated timber joints under a combination of shear and reversed cyclic loading. A total of seven systems were tested to observe the evolution of damage, failure modes, and moment–rotation behaviour. The interstorey drift and deflection of a building that would cause failure of each system is inferred from the ultimate rotation capacities and compared to the limit(s) prescribed by Clause 4.1.8.13.3 of the National Building Code of Canada for various building categories. The BP systems generally reached an interstorey drift exceeding 2.5%, while the S-DT and DTP systems reached drifts of 0.6% and >1.2%, respectively. The BP systems also exhibited more ductile failure modes than the S-DT and DTP systems, involving withdrawal failure of the wood screws. Recommendations are made for appropriate connectors to use in each building category considered.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207