MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092305781 · doi:10.2749/ghent.2025.0193

Reliability-based Assessment of Existing Concrete Structures in ACI CODE-562-25

2025· article· W7092305781 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding codeReinforced concreteDurabilityCode (set theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The next edition of the American Concrete Institute’s <i>Assessment, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Existing Concrete Structures – Code and Commentary (ACI CODE-562-25) </i>includes new provisions for reliability-based assessment using the mean load method. The licensed design professional responsible for the evaluation will now be permitted to conduct a preliminary evaluation, a detailed evaluation, and a reliability-based evaluation to assess the structural safety, serviceability, or durability of an existing concrete structure. To assist practitioners who are unfamiliar with such methods, a parallel initiative has produced the new guide, <i>Statistical Techniques for Assessment of Existing Concrete Structures (ACI PRC-ITG-11-24)</i>. Its appendix, “Reliability Toolkit for Assessing Existing Concrete Structures,” may become the most frequently used part of the document as users become familiar with reliability-based methods. This paper presents some of the background behind, and summarizes, these documents.</p>

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 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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.290 · 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