MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206966239 · doi:10.32920/16847668.v1

Simplified Approach of Seismic Analysis Using a Planar Linear Elastic Model for an Office Building with no Regularity in Plan in Comparison to a Spatial Model According to Finite Element Software

2021· preprint· en· W4206966239 on OpenAlex
Timo Schlenker

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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Structural Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocodeSoftwareFinite element methodPlan (archaeology)Moment (physics)Earthquake resistanceStructural engineeringPlanarDistribution (mathematics)BracingComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringGeologyMathematical analysisPhysicsProgramming languageComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>This master’s project introduces a simplified approach to calculate the earthquake resistance of a four-storey office building. Therefore, the moment distribution of each bracing wall according to the approach will be compared to the moment distribution according to the earthquake resistance calculation of a finite element software. Both, the simplified approach and the calculation using a spatial model will be introduced and performed. The comparison then will be investigated to explain the differences and why the approach can not be considered to be a conservative simplification to calculate the investigated building for earthquake resistance.</div><div>Furthermore, this masters project is based on the 2018 German National Annex of Eurocode 8 and compares it to the predecessor version of 2011.</div>

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.244 · 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