MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability basis for assessment of existing building structures with reference to sans 10160

2021· article· en· W3154712441 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

VenueJournal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocodeScope (computer science)Reliability (semiconductor)Structural reliabilityService (business)EngineeringStructural systemReliability engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceSystems engineeringCivil engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principles of structural reliability are firmly established to provide the basis for structural performance as incorporated in design standards. Reliability-based procedures provide for variabilities and uncertainties that could reasonably be expected during the design service life of the structure. However, not all possible conditions to which all structures are exposed during such an extended service period can be accounted for effectively and economically at the design stage. The assessment of the reliability performance of an existing structure therefore forms an integral part of structural management and engineering practice. Despite the lag between the development and implementation of a basis for design and assessment of structures, the extensive body of information on structural assessment progresses steadily towards standardisation. This paper provides a review of the progress to provide background information towards extending the scope of South African structural standards to include guidance on structural assessment. The focus is on such developments to include provisions for existing structures in Eurocode, together with related investigations. In addition to a general review of background investigations, interrelationships between the basis of design and assessment for Eurocode (potentially also for South Africa) are considered. The main elements of a standardised basis for assessment are defined, and alternative assessment approaches are presented and demonstrated by representative examples. In conclusion, an outline of a possible development path for implementation in South Africa is provided.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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