MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reconstruction of the Lions Gate Bridge

2001· article· en· W135775655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Abrahams, Joseph K. Tse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeckBridge (graph theory)Seismic analysisEngineeringSpan (engineering)Human settlementCivil engineeringWork (physics)Forensic engineeringSeismic retrofitStructural engineeringReinforced concrete

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lions Gate Bridge, owned by the Province of British Columbia, Canada, is being reconstructed under a contract valued at nearly $100 million (US). The major components of the bridge work include seismic retrofit, widening of the approach spans, and replacement of the existing suspended deck. The contractor is required to develop and independently check the seismic retrofit design, as well as the erection schemes and associated equipment design for the deck replacement. Major challenges for the deck replacement of the suspended span include: removal and replacement of deck during night closures of 8 to 10 hours; and maintenance of traffic at all other times. Major challenges for the seismic retrofit design include: bridge to be seismically retrofitted so that it can remain open to traffic following a design-level (475-year) event; tall steel bents (approximately 160 ft) of the approach spans that are allowed to rock to dissipate energy under design seismic event; and potentially liquefiable soil conditions and ground settlements at the approach spans.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures→French-language works237,207→