MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206838049 · doi:10.3390/su132011257

Experimental Investigation on Axial Compression of Resilient Nail-Cross-Laminated Timber Panels

2021· article· en· W3206838049 on OpenAlexaff
Moncef L. Nehdi, Yannian Zhang, Xiaohan Gao, Lei V. Zhang, Ahmed R. Suleiman

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNail (fastener)Structural engineeringCompression (physics)BucklingMaterials scienceDeformation (meteorology)Composite materialEngineered woodCompressive strengthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional cross-laminated timber is an engineered wood product consisting of solid-sawn lumber panels glued together. In this study, the structural behavior of solid wood panels of Nail-Cross-Laminated Timber (NCLT) panels connected with nails instead of glue was studied. The failure mode and nail deformation of the novel NCLT panels under axial compression load using eight full-scale NCLT panels was investigated. The effects of four key design parameters, namely, the nail type, number of nails, nail orientation angle, and nail slenderness ratio on axial compression performance of NCLT panels were also analyzed. In addition, a formula for predicting the axial compression bearing capacity of NCLT panels was developed. For calculation of the slenderness ratio, the moment of inertia of the full section or the effective section was determined based on the nail type, number of nails, angle of nail orientation and number of layers of the plate. Results showed that specimens connected by tapping screws had best compressive performance.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207