MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245985127 · doi:10.1680/stbu.2006.159.3.179

Discussion: Cracking analysis of fibre-reinforced polymer-reinforced concrete tension members

2006· article· en· W4245985127 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Antonietta Aiello, Marianovella Leone, Luciano Ombres, Peter H. Bischoff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffeningServiceability (structure)CrackingMaterials scienceStiffnessTension (geology)ShrinkageComposite materialStructural engineeringFibre-reinforced plasticReinforced concreteDeformation (meteorology)Ultimate tensile strengthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors are to be congratulated for a timely article investigating the effect of cracking on deformation behaviour and crack width development of concrete reinforced with carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars.Serviceability behaviour is especially important with FRP bars because of their low stiffness as noted in the paper, and tension members are often used to investigate the tensile contribution (tension stiffening effect) of concrete in flexural members such as beams and slabs.The discusser would like to focus on five issues: (a) errata to equations; (b) the effect of bond on tension stiffening; (c) the effect of shrinkage on tension stiffening; (d) the method used by the authors to measure member deformation; and (e) code prediction equations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and BuildingsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207