Evaluating the fire performance of FRP-strengthened concrete structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The infrastructure of the developed world, essential for economic health and prosperity, is crumbling. Decades of neglect and overuse have resulted in unacceptable levels of deterioration to roads, buildings and bridges, and new materials and techniques are urgently needed for structural rehabilitation and strengthening. Fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs), which represent a new class of high-strength, non-corrosive, and lightweight structural rehabilitation and construction materials, have garnered significant research attention in recent years, and their effectiveness as externally-bonded repair materials for concrete is now widely recognized. Nevertheless, the high-temperature performance of FRP materials remains largely unknown, and this issue urgently needs addressing before FRP materials can be used with confidence in buildings and other structures where fire safety is a critical design consideration. Tragic events in recent years have demonstrated that design for fire safety is critically important for public safety. In addition, recent research gap analyses for the use of FRP materials in structural applications have identified fire performance as an area in which additional information is urgently required.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".