MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968601636 · doi:10.1139/l01-015

A probabilistic approach to analysis of ice loads for the Confederation Bridge

2001· article· en· W1968601636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas G. Brown, Ian Jordaan, Ken Croasdale

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubbleProbabilistic logicKeelTraverseProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsBridge (graph theory)Environmental scienceSea iceGeologyStructural engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringStatisticsMathematicsGeodesyClimatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main focus of the paper is the framework for analysing ice loads on the Confederation Bridge across the Northumberland Strait, using probabilistic methods. Safety targets were given as a beta factor of 4.0 for a 100-year lifetime, amounting to a probability of failure of about 3 × 10-7 per year. The ice regime comprises rafted and ridged ice, and peak loads are expected during March and April of each year. A simulation method was developed, in which loads are calculated corresponding to individual interactions associated with ridges in the ice floes that traverse the strait. The floes are driven by environmental driving forces, and the highest loads occur when these exceed the ridge failure loads. The load results from failure of the consolidated layer and rubble keel. Methods for the analysis of this are described. The determination of extreme loads depends on the number of interactions per year. Difficulties in modelling are described, together with techniques for analysis, such as updating of probability distributions given an interaction. Many of these techniques were derived from work related to the Beaufort Sea oil exploration. The results reflect a best-estimate approach to those parameters for which information was sketchy, or unavailable. They are therefore conditional on those estimates, but as the results are largely insensitive to these, the potential for error is minimal. There are a number of parameters (e.g., friction coefficient) that do have a significant effect and for which all those involved in the effort would have wished better definition. This sensitivity is reflected in the two sets of results presented in the paper.Key words: ice, forces, probabilistic, safety, bridges, modelling.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207