MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391014884 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0298

Behaviour of glued-laminated timber beams under impact loading

2024· article· en· W4391014884 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringEngineeringBeam (structure)Forensic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short duration loads, such as impact loading, have the potential to generate catastrophic effects on infrastructure and loss of life. Although design provisions for engineered wood products are included in Canada’s blast design standard, CSA S850, how these structural materials respond to blast and impact loads across a wide range of high strain rates has not been well documented. An experimental program was carried out using a newly established Drop Weight Impact Testing Facility to investigate the flexural behaviour of glued-laminated timber beams subjected to impact loading. High strain rates were generated, whereby the dynamic specimens were found to differ quantitatively and qualitatively from their quasi-static counterparts. Dynamic increase factors of 1.13 and 1.20 were observed on the peak resistance and initial stiffness, respectively. A single-degree-of-freedom model was developed and validated against the experimental test results, where it was found to accurately predict the displacement–time histories of the specimens until 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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