MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6990965321

Environmental compatibility study of steel and GFRP anchors with stones used in heritage structures

2009· dissertation· en· W6990965321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryCompatibility (geochemistry)IngenuityCultural heritageFibre-reinforced plastic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historic buildings speak to our past through the art and ingenuity of our ancestors.As stewards of these buildings, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are protected for the generations to come.Following internationally accepted heritage conservation prac- tices is critical to protecting heritage buildings.In the case of historic stone masonry buildings in Canada, this often entails the protection of the heritage masonry itself.Of particular interest to this study is the effect of reinforcing heritage masonry with modem materials and ensuring that these modern reinforcement techniques do not have a longterm detrimental effect on the masonry itself.This research project focused on various anchor assemblies in order to better understand the long-term compatibility between traditional and new materials.In this study, the thermal compatibility of embedded anchor assemblies in wet and dry environments of masonry was examined.In this research pro- ject the effect of these anchor assemblies on the permeability characteristics of the stones and the susceptibility of the anchors to lose strength as a result of freeze-thaw cycling in wet and dry conditions was also investigated.4.L.5 Damage investigation in stone-anchor assemblies due to freeze-thaw tests ..........."....'80 4.L.6 Linear coeffrcient of thermal expansion results from dry freeze- thaw tests ."....

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207