MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995762679 · doi:10.1139/l06-105

Repair and rehabilitation of wood utility poles with fibre-reinforced polymers

2007· article· en· W1995762679 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Dimos Polyzois, Jon A Kell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManitoba Hydro
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticService lifeStructural integrityForensic engineeringRehabilitationEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All wood utility poles require an effective maintenance program to ensure safe and reliable service. The end of a wood utility pole's useful life can be attributed to several factors, including decay, mechanical damage, weathering, and changing design requirements. Pole life can be extended through an effective preservative treatment and maintenance program, but all poles will reach a point when they are no longer suitable for their intended use. With the increasing cost of quality wood for use in poles, along with environmental concerns regarding pole disposal and chemical treatment of existing poles, new innovative methods are required to restore and maintain the structural integrity of existing wood poles. This paper presents results from a research program carried out at the University of Manitoba to develop a repair and rehabilitation technique for wood poles using fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP).Key words: wood, utility poles, fibre-reinforced, polymers, FRP, repair, rehabilitation.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.163
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207