MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911300895 · doi:10.1061/ciegag.0000798

Probing for Passage: The St. Clair Tunnel

2007· article· en· W1911300895 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)ArchaeologyGeologyImmersed tubeEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an historical account of the construction of the St. Clair tunnel that connected the U.S. with its northern neighbor Canada under the St. Clair River in eastern Michigan in 1890. This first subaqueous tunnel to be built in North America was necessitated by the political difficulties of bridge-building at the time, as bridges were to allow for boats with even the tallest masts to travel safely below. As Grand Trunk Railway wished to cross the river, the company contracted the Canadian engineer Joseph Hobson for the 8,000 foot long tunnel. Hobson, who found there to be both shale and blue clay underneath the river, decided to tunnel through the clay, which he thought to be the more stable of the two. The tunnel was excavated from both sides using a steel shell that was pushed along as progress was made. Hobson also made use of air pressurization in the tunnel at a time when such technology was little-used.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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