MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387341451 · doi:10.1002/geot.202300021

Felsbauplanung mit dem geotechnischen Werkzeugkasten von morgen: Eurocode und die Grundlagen der Planung von Tragwerken und geotechnischen Bauwerken (die zweite Generation der EN 1990 und EN 1997)

2023· article· en· W4387341451 on OpenAlexaff
Luís Lamas, U. Burbaum, José Estaire, J. P. Harrison, Guido Nuijten

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomechanics and Tunnelling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Structural Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocodeEngineeringCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current first generation of Eurocodes is a suite of ten European standards for the design of buildings and civil engineering works, whose implementation started in 2010. EN 1990 sets the basis of structural design, with the other Eurocodes dealing with different materials and specific aspects of design. Geotechnical aspects of design are covered by EN 1997 ”Geotechnical design“, usually called Eurocode 7. The evolution of the Eurocodes started in 2012 and the main objectives of their revision were to incorporate improvements that reflect the state‐of‐the‐art in engineering design and the needs of the civil engineering market, to improve the ease‐of‐use and to harmonize practice between countries. While the original version was developed largely based on soil mechanics, the aim was that the revised version treats soil and rock on an equal basis. The second generation of the Eurocodes is now nearly finished, and the revised EN 1997 is expected to be formally approved in 2024. This paper is the first of a set of six informative papers on the revised Eurocodes and rock engineering, prepared by members of the Rock Engineering Platform of CEN/TC250/SC7, a group of rock engineering experts that has been assisting in drafting EN 1997 from a rock‐engineering perspective. The paper presents the main changes to EN 1990 and EN 1997 as far as they affect geotechnical and rock engineering design.

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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomechanics and TunnellingSame topicCivil and Structural Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207