MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156604921 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0440

Concrete-filled hollow structural sections. I: Materials, cross-section classification, and concentrically loaded columns

2021· article· en· W3156604921 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kyle Tousignant, Jeffrey A. Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringTension (geology)Reliability (semiconductor)Section (typography)Beam (structure)Compression (physics)Flexural strengthEngineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews contemporary rules in CSA S16:19, AISC 360-16, and EN 1994-1-1 for concrete-filled hollow structural sections (HSS), covering materials, cross-section classification, and concentrically loaded columns. Results from 453 tests on axially compressed concrete-filled HSS members were compared to the predicted strengths using current (CSA S16:19, AISC 360-16, and EN 1994-1-1) and recommended CSA S16 design equations (with limits of validity), and a first-order reliability analysis was performed in accordance with CSA S408-11. The recommendations herein are shown to maintain the current CSA S16:19 Clause 18.2 level of reliability for concrete-filled HSS compression members. Design examples are provided, and the results are compared with the counterpart American code (AISC 360-16). This paper is Part I of a two-part series. Part II covers flexural members, beam-columns, tension, and shear.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207