MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tubular construction

2000· article· en· W4239245207 on OpenAlexaff
JA PACKER

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Structural Engineering and Materials · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)DirectoryEngineeringResource (disambiguation)Production (economics)Architectural engineeringConstruction engineeringForensic engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review is intended to serve as a directory of where authoritative, current, resource material can be found relating to all aspects of the design of tubular steel structures. The scope is predominantly limited to onshore structures, using cold- or hot-formed manufactured tubing. Most of the guidance publications cited have a high degree of international consensus, are published in the 1990s and are readily accessible by the international design community, with many available in multiple languages. The article also summarizes the range of tolerances in geometric properties that are permitted in various countries, for the manufacture of rectangular, square and circular hollow sections. Certain countries have excessively liberal production tolerances and this has the consequence of eroding safety margins in structures which use such tubes since manufacturers tend to produce to the minimum standards permitted. This has been a particular issue in the US and the way the problem has been addressed by the American Institute of Steel Construction is described.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.013

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Structural Engineering and MaterialsSame topicStructural Engineering and Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207