MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285294251 · doi:10.5267/j.esm.2022.4.003

Footprint of construction errors on the structural damages

2022· article· en· W4285294251 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saeed Nemati, Bijan Samali, Yahya Aliabadizadeh, Pegah Jafari Haghighatpour

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Solid Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)DamagesCapital cityFootprintIndex (typography)Capital (architecture)Forensic engineeringStatisticsBusinessCivil engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of structural failures are attributable to errors in construction. This problem exists in all countries, but it is more frequent in developing communities. This study focuses on construction errors of structures in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. In this study, eighty-eight buildings have been investigated during the construction phase. These buildings have been categorized into ten types and have been distributed in twenty-two suburbs. Results showed that the buildings of Tehran can suffer from at least forty-nine major construction problems. In addition, for the first time, this research has introduced the following three terms in relation to prioritizing of construction errors: Relative Importance Factor (RIF), Priority Index (PI) and Structural Importance Index (SII). As a part of the conclusions, the results showed one hundred percent of investigated buildings are affected dramatically by the “use of untrained workers” and “lack of sampling or wrong sampling” too. In this regard, the RIF and PI of each “Lack of sampling or wrong sampling” and “use of untrained workers” are 100 and 1, respectively. Also, suburb 3 has the best construction conditions while suburb 10 has the worst.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.348 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Solid MechanicsSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207