Reliability-based geotechnical design in 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has two national civil codes of practice that include geotechnical design provisions: the National Building Code of Canada and the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. For structural designs, both of these codes have been employing a load and resistance factor format embedded within a limit states design framework since the mid-1970s. Unfortunately, limit states design in geotechnical engineering has been lagging well behind that in structural engineering for the simple fact that the ground is by far the most variable (and hence uncertain) of engineering materials. Although the first implementation of a geotechnical limit states design code appeared in Denmark in 1956, it was not until 1979 that the concept began to appear in Canadian design codes, i.e., in the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code, which later became the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The geotechnical design provisions in the CHBDC have evolved significantly since their inception in 1979. This paper describes the latest advances appearing in the CHBDC along with the steps taken to calibrate its recent geotechnical resistance and consequence factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".