MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024722744

Shear Behaviour of Precast/Prestressed Hollow-Core Slabs

2012· dissertation· en· W7024722744 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsPrecast/Prestressed Concrete InstituteUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsShear (geology)Finite element methodVoid (composites)Shear strength (soil)Critical resolved shear stressReinforcement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shear strength of precast/prestressed hollow-core (PHC) slabs subjected to concentrated or line loads, especially near supports, may be critical and usually is the governing criteria in the design. This study presents the second phase of a research program, undergoing at the University of Manitoba, to calibrate the shear equations in the Canadian code for predicting the shear capacity of PHC slabs. This phase includes both experimental and numerical investigations using a finite element analysis (FEA) software package. The length of bearing, void shape and size, level of prestressing and shear span-to-depth ratio were investigated. The experimental results were compared to the predictions of the Canadian, American and European codes. It was concluded that the Canadian code is unduly conservative. However, the special European code for PHC slabs resulted in better and more consistent predictions. The FEA suggested that the adequate prestressing reinforcement ratio to obtain highest shear capacity ranges between 0.7% and 1.1%.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207