MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409784612 · doi:10.70803/001c.137193

Artificial Neural Network to Predict the Shear Strength of Partially Grouted Masonry Walls

2023· article· en· W4409784612 on OpenAlexaff
Bennett Banting, Cristián Sandoval, Carlos Cruz-Noguez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Masonry Society Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkMasonryGeotechnical engineeringShear strength (soil)Structural engineeringShear (geology)GeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the shear strength of partially grouted (PG) masonry walls subjected to lateral loads is complex, due to the anisotropy of masonry and nonlinear interactions between the mortar, grouted cells, ungrouted cells, and reinforcing steel. Although current masonry design codes provide equations to predict the shear strength of PG walls, most are empirical and rely on data that has not been subject to rigorous meta-analyses. Artificial neural networks (ANN) have demonstrated potential in engineering research applications to predict nonlinear relationships. This paper presents an ANN model for the shear strength of PG masonry walls using a compiled database of PG wall specimens. The effect of previously unaccounted parameters in code-based approaches is discussed. The process of synthesization and meta-analysis used to prepare the database for the ANN model is discussed. A sensitivity analysis is performed to evaluate the ANN model and gain insight for future research based on its predictions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Masonry Society JournalSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207