MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016033710 · doi:10.1002/bate.201900103

Hybrides Tragwerk des 18‐stöckigen Studentenwohnheims “Tall Wood Building“ in Vancouver und Alternative in Holz

2020· article· de· W3016033710 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Tannert, Thomas Connolly

Bibliographic record

VenueBautechnik · 2020
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtPhysicsHumanitiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Im ersten Teil dieses Beitrags wird der Entwurf eines der höchsten Holz‐Hybridgebäude der Welt diskutiert – des 18‐stöckigen, 53 m hohen Studentenwohnheims auf dem Campus der Universität von British Columbia in Vancouver, Kanada. Das Gebäude besteht aus 17 Stockwerken in Massivholzbauweise auf einem Stockwerk in Stahlbeton. Zwei vertikale Betonkerne sorgen für die erforderliche horizontale Aussteifung. Das Holzbausystem besteht aus Brettsperrholzplatten, die punktuell auf Brettschichtholzstützen gelagert sind. Während der Bau der Betonkerne 14 Wochen dauerte, nahm der gesamte Massivholzaufbau nur zehn Wochen in Anspruch. Eine wesentliche Verkürzung der Projektlaufzeit und Verringerung des ökologischen Fußabdrucks des Gebäudes hätte erreicht werden können, wenn auch für die Kerne Massivholz verwendet worden wäre. Im zweiten Teil dieser Arbeit wird die Möglichkeit untersucht, das Gebäude mit Massivholzkernen zu gestalten. Die Ergebnisse eines validierten numerischen Modells zeigen, dass mit Massivholzkernen die Kriterien für die Erdbeben‐ und Windbemessung gemäß der aktuellen kanadischen Baunormung erfüllt werden können.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBautechnikSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207