MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231666922 · doi:10.1017/9781316585146.003

Introduction

2017· book-chapter· en· W4231666922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia‐Liang Le

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)Limit (mathematics)Structural failureEngineeringAeronauticsForensic engineeringMathematicsRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like most things in life, we must accept that the occurrence probability of any future event cannot be exactly zero. We must be contented with a structural failure probability that is negligible compared to other risks that people willingly take, such as car accidents. It is generally agreed that adequate safety of engineering structures is achieved by specifying a failure probability of 10−6 per lifetime as the maximum admissible in design [Nordic Committee for Building Structures (NKB) 1978; Melchers 1987; Duckett 2005; Ellingwood 2006]. This probability limit is generally accepted for engineering structures, whether bridges or aircraft (Duckett 2005; Department of National Defense of Canada 2007), although for some nuclear plant structures an even smaller limit is required.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207