MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322100285 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-11474

Experimental Behavior of L-Shaped and T-Shaped Cross-Laminated Timber to Evaluate Shear Walls with Openings

2023· article· en· W4322100285 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross laminated timberStructural engineeringBrittlenessShear (geology)StiffnessBendingBeam (structure)Materials scienceShear wallFailure mechanismGeologyEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in using cross-laminated timber (CLT) in buildings because of its high strength and stiffness. In Japan, structural design guidelines for CLT buildings were established in 2016 and construction of mid-rise buildings is increasing. Wide-panel walls can exceed widths of 10 m and integrate cut-outs for window and door openings. However, under lateral loads, corner cracks at the openings have been the most prevalent failure mechanism. To investigate the initiation and propagation of corner cracks, a series of bendings are undertaken on L- and T-shape specimens extracted from the CLT panels. In addition, three-point bending and shear tests are also carried out on beam sections extracted from the CLT panels. Three types of brittle failure were observed: bending failure of the beam or column, and rolling shear failure.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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