MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2001443263 · doi:10.2749/222137908796293695

Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Quesnell Bridge, Edmonton, Canada

2008· article· en· W2001443263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Azita Azarnejad, Gamil Tadros, Ken Rebel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirderServiceability (structure)Precast concreteStructural engineeringDeckBridge deckEngineeringExpansion jointTruckBridge (graph theory)Fibre-reinforced plasticSpan (engineering)Forensic engineeringCivil engineeringAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quesnell Bridge (1968) in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, is a six span, 315 m long bridge consisting of parabolic precast post-tensioned girders with a cast in place deck. Rehabilitation and widening of this bridge is part of City of Edmonton’s Transportation infrastructure upgrading program. Initial investigations showed that girders would be deficient in shear capacity and serviceability stresses for the new Canadian 800 kN design truck load. The deck assessment determined that significant levels of corrosion existed in the reinforcing and that replacement of deck would also be required. The objective of this paper is to review the available options for strengthening including FRP fabric for shear strengthening, FRP plates for negative moment connection over the internal supports, and external post-tensioning for improving stresses. The results of the analysis that led to the selection of strengthening procedure and some of the issues complicating strengthening design are discussed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete→French-language works237,207→