A Survey on Contemporary Practices for Achieving Structural Robustness in Mass Timber Buildings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarises the contemporary practices and implementations of existing codes and guidelines with respect to disproportionate collapse prevention as discussed in detail in Mpidi Bita et al. [1]. Focus is given on structural robustness, defined as the ideal method to decrease the probability of disproportionate collapse in buildings following an initial damage. The results from a global survey with 171 participants (mainly structural engineers) are presented. By comparing practices applied to different structural materials (steel, concrete and timber) and in different regions (Canada, USA, Europe, Australia/New Zealand), areas of improvements for the existing codes and guidelines as well as further research are identified. The results emphasise on the importance of including specific recommendations for structural robustness in building codes, applicable to high importance and high occupancy structures. A performance-based approach is preferable, rather than prescriptive requirements, for practical and economical solutions. In addition, the obtained responses highlight the need to further develop the existing indirect and direct methods for disproportionate collapse prevention and structural robustness to include material-specific considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it