MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167967899 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0453

Concrete-filled hollow structural sections. II: Flexural members, beam-columns, tension, and shear

2021· article· en· W3167967899 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 engineeringShear (geology)Tension (geology)Beam (structure)Flexural strengthBendingCompression (physics)Reinforced concreteMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews contemporary North American and international approaches to the design of concrete-filled hollow structural section (HSS) members for flexure, axial compression plus uniaxial bending, tension, and shear. Results from tests on concrete-filled HSS members under flexure and combined loading are compared to predicted strengths using current (CSA S16:19 and AISC 360-16) and recommended CSA S16 design equations (with limits of validity). A first-order reliability analysis of design provisions for flexure is performed in accordance with CSA S408-11, and recommendations are made for potential revision of CSA S16. Design examples are provided, and results are compared to the counterpart American code (AISC 360-16). This paper is Part II of a two-part series. Part I covers materials, cross-section classification, and concentrically loaded columns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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