Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of the shear-span ratio,concrete strength,longitudinal reinforcement ratio,member height and other factors on shear strength of reinforced concrete members without or with stirrups based on GB 50010—2002,ACI 318-08,EN 1992-1-1:2004,as well as CSA A23.3-04 were comparatively analyzed.Based on a lot of experimental results about shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams,shear capacity calculation formulas were studied,then reliability analysis performed by method of first-order second moment was presented.The maximum or minimum stirrup ratio and stirrup spacing requirements were comparatively analyzed.The results show that average reliability indexes of shear strength for reinforced concrete members without or with stirrups designed according to Chinese code are greater than those of Canadian code,but smaller than ACI code and European code.For the minimum ratios of stirrups,European code is a little greater than Chinese code,and is greater than ACI code and Canadian code.For the maximum spacing of stirrups,the four codes are mostly the same when the member section height is small,with member section height increasing,European code is greater than ACI code and Canadian code,and Chinese code is the smallest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".