MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982140966 · doi:10.1061/41093(372)22

Drilled Shaft O-Cell Response at Golden Ears Bridge from Seismic Piezocone Tests

2010· article· en· W1982140966 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fawad S. Niazi, Paul W. Mayne, David J. Woeller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsConetec Investigations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyDepth soundingBridge (graph theory)Structural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of deep foundations under vertical loading is classically evaluated using a combination of limit plasticity and static equilibrium solutions for bearing capacity and elastic continuum solutions for displacements. Here, in-situ geotechnical test data are first processed to provide determinations of soil engineering parameters (γt, OCR, σp' Ko, su, φ', E, v) that are then input into the theoretical equations. Alternatively, the foundations can be assessed via direct methods, whereby the results of in-situ tests are scaled to produce response curves. A review of direct methods and several indirect CPT interpretations is presented using a case study from the response of a large deep drilled shaft at the newly constructed Golden Ears Bridge over the Fraser River in Vancouver, British Columbia, which was subjected to a staged Osterberg load testing sequence. Interpreted geotechnical parameters are obtained from a 100-m deep seismic piezocone sounding that provided four separate readings with depth (qt, fs, u2, and Vs).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207