MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126559213 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.2723

Effectiveness of UHPFRC cover for the seismic strengthening of deficient bridge piers

2017· article· en· W3126559213 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpallPierStructural engineeringConcrete coverReinforcementFinite element methodBridge (graph theory)EngineeringReinforced concreteBendingBar (unit)Geotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The paper presents the results of an experimental and analytical research program aimed at developing an innovative seismic strengthening technique using Ultra‐high Performance Fibre Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC) cover applied to existing bridge piers with deficient reinforcement detailing. Experimental results on full‐scale rectangular bridge pier specimens with cross‐sectional aspect ratios of 4:1 and 2:1 subjected to weak or strong axis bending showed that the exceptional mechanical properties of UHPFRC allow eliminating concrete failure modes such as splitting cracks, spalling and crushing, thereby allowing transferring lapped bar forces through the surrounding UHPFRC, as well as failure modes associated with inadequate reinforcement detailing. Refined 3D nonlinear finite element models were developed to provide a numerical tool for evaluating the performance the strengthening technique.</p>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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