MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095592428

Background information for some of the proposed earthquake design provisions for the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada1

2015· article· en· W7095592428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode (set theory)Key (lock)Building codeIdentification (biology)Path (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

H. DeVall Abstract: There are many changes proposed for the Earthquake Design Provisions of the 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Among them are requirements for complete load paths, separation of stiff nonstructural elements, and the introduction of definitions of irregular structures and special design requirements asso-ciated with these irregularities. A new requirement for direction of loading is introduced, along with requirements for elements common to more than one lateral load resisting system. The effects of displacements are emphasized through-out the document, and revised provisions for drift limits are proposed. Revisions to the importance factor that integrate it into the proposed revised format for Part 4, Structural design, of the NBCC are given. Background information is presented. Key words: load path importance factor, irregular structures, direction of loading, special requirements, drift limits. Résumé: Il y a plusieurs changements proposés aux clauses sur la conception sismique de la version 2005 du Code National du Bâtiment du Canada (CNBC). Parmis ceux-ci se trouvent les exigences d’un chemin de charge complet, la séparation des éléments non-structurels rigides, et l’introduction des définitions des structures irrégulières et des exigen-ces spéciales de conception associées à ces irrégularités. Une exigence nouvelle pour la direction des sollicitations est introduite, ainsi que des exigences pour les éléments communs à plus d’un système de résistance des charges latérales. Les effets des déplacements sont accentués à travers le document et des clauses révisées pour la limitation des mouve-ments sont proposées. Les révisions du facteur d’importance l’intégrant à l’intérieur du format révisé proposé de la partie 4, Conception structurale, du CNBC sont présentées. De l’information de contexte est présentée pour les sujets ci-haut mentionnés. Mots clés: facteur d’importance du chemin de charge, structures irrégulières, direction des sollicitations, exigences spéciales, limitations des mouvements. [Traduit par la Rédaction] DeVall 286

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207