Experimental study of the behavior of box floor with orthogonal ribbed beams by poplar LVL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the unidirectional layout of ribbed beams and simple structure in traditional wooden floors, it is not suitable for large-span wooden buildings. Six groups of floor ribbed beams with plane size of 4.8 m×3.6 m were designed and manufactured by using poplar laminated veneer lumber (LVL), among which five floor specimens were orthogonal ribbed beams and the other one was traditional. A bending performance test was carried out to analyze the influence of different ribbed beam spacing and high span ratio on the mechanical performance of poplar LVL orthogonal ribbed beams, and its results were compared with that of the traditional floor with ribbed beams. The results showed that the box floors with orthogonal ribbed beams had good integrity during the bending process. Moreover, the change of the high span ratio had an important influence on the bending performance of the box floors with orthogonal ribbed beams, and the change of the spacing of the ribbed beams had a relatively small influence on the flexural performance of the box floors with orthogonal ribbed beams. Under the same conditions, the bending performance of the box floors with orthogonal ribbed beams was better than that of traditional floor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".