MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409359923 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2024-0259

Influence of Web Geometry on Concrete Masonry Walls Subject to Out-of-Plane Loading

2025· article· en· W4409359923 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M. Heide, Lisa R. Feldman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringPlane (geometry)Subject (documents)EngineeringGeometryUnreinforced masonry buildingGeotechnical engineeringGeologyComputer scienceMathematicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental program consisting of 27 partially grouted and reinforced walls was conducted to assess the impact of concrete masonry unit (CMU) web geometry on flexural response when subject to out-of-plane loading given changes to CMU geometry as adopted by ASTM C90 in 2011 that have yet to be vetted in Canada. All walls had the same overall geometry and were constructed with either regular stretcher units conforming to either CSA A165-14 or ASTM C90-23 or knock-out units conforming to ASTM C90-23. The configuration of the longitudinal reinforcement was also varied between wall series such one of that three reinforcing ratios resulted: 0.22, 0.44, or 0.66%. No notable differences in behavior resulted due to differences in the geometry of the concrete masonry units used in wall construction, though the grout columns as included in the reinforced cells appeared to mask the influence of web geometry.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207