MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Static and Impact Response of a Single-Span Stone Masonry Arch

2021· article· en· W4200537993 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

VenueInfrastructures · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringContext (archaeology)Quasistatic processArchStiffnessJoint (building)Unreinforced masonry buildingGeotechnical engineeringSpan (engineering)Finite element methodEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unreinforced masonry structures are susceptible to man-made hazards such as impact and blast loading. However, the literature on this subject mainly focuses on masonry wall behavior, and there is a knowledge gap about the behavior of masonry arches under high-strain loading. In this context, this research aims to investigate both quasistatic and impact response of a dry-joint stone masonry arch using the discrete element method. Rigid blocks with noncohesive joint models are adopted to simulate dry-joint assemblages. First, the employed modeling strategy is validated utilizing the available experimental findings, and then sensitivity analyses are performed for both static and impact loading, considering the effect of joint friction angle, contact stiffness, and damping parameters. The outcomes of this research strengthen the existing knowledge in the literature regarding the computational modeling of masonry structures that are subjected to usual and extreme loading conditions. The results highlight that applied discontinuum-based numerical models are more sensitive to stiffness parameters in high-strain loading than static analysis.

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)0.000
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 score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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