Upgrading the Spoke Wheel Stadium Roof Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The roof structure of Olympic Stadium in Rome had been conceived, studied and realized between the end of 1988 and the April 1990, in total 16 months of work. This roof is the first example of spoke wheel roof structural system, that today is widely applied on many actual Stadiums around the world [1]. Wind tunnel tests on the roof structure have been carried out at the BLWT Lab. of Western Ontario University: at that time, there have been many discussions between the designer and wind tunnel researchers about the integration of wind tunnel tests data into the design process for sub-horizontal wide span roofs. The conceptual design and the method of wind dynamic analysis has been updated for the Yaoundé roof Stadium, now under construction. The aerodynamic behavior of Yaoundé stadium roof has been tested in London RWDI wind tunnel. Innovative and recently proposed numerical techniques have been adopted to perform dynamic analyses under wind action. Erection sequences prescribed for roofs of these two Stadiums are both remarkable and advanced: the big lift adopted procedure for the Olympic stadium roof in Rome and the new tie down pre tensioning operation, provided for the Yaoundé stadium cable roof.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".