MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910339144 · doi:10.4224/40002023

Structural Commentaries (User's Guide: NBC 2015: Part 4 of Division B)

2017· standard· en· W6910339144 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2017
Typestandard
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Division (mathematics)Cover (algebra)Code (set theory)Information system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Commentaries presented herein serve to provide designers with detailed design information that will assist them in the application of Part 4 of Division B of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2015. They contain background information and suggested approaches to certain design issues; their provisions are not mandatory requirements of the NBC. The information set forth in these Commentaries does not cover all conditions and types of structures that occur in practice. For unusual types of structures, specialized information, such as theoretical studies, model tests or wind tunnel experiments, may be required to provide adequate design values. It should also be noted that new information can become available at any time. As such, designers are encouraged to obtain the latest and most appropriate design information available.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCFrench-language works237,207