MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024581377 · doi:10.1179/dfi.2010.002

Analysis of a Deep Excavation In Calgary, Alberta

2010· article· en· W2024581377 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas R.A. Lardner, Matthew Janes, K. Y. Lo, Guangfeng Qu, S. Micic

Bibliographic record

VenueDFI Journal The Journal of the Deep Foundations Institute · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringBedrockInclinometerExcavationGeologyDeflection (physics)ShoringMaterials scienceComposite materialGeomorphologyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractExcavation for The Bow, EnCana, in downtown Calgary, occurred between May 2007 and September 2008. A monitoring programme was used to determine the behaviour of the shoring wall, soil and bedrock during the excavation for the 21 metre (69 ft) deep excavation with a footprint of approximately 17,000 m2 (183,000 sq ft). Results from the inclinometer readings indicated that significant horizontal movement due to a weak rock layer and shear band effect. These modes of movement account for up to 100 mm (4.0 in) and 45 mm (1.8 in) of lateral deflection, respectively.Based upon the results of the monitoring programme, rock samples were collected from the weak mudstone bedrock, with great difficulty, to determine the strength and deformation parameters. Results from the uniaxial compression tests indicate a UCS around 830 kPa (120 psi) and elastic modulus between 80 and 180 MPa (11 and 26 ksi). Mohr-Columb parameters were determined to be c' = 340 kPa (49 psi) and Φ' = 24°. Residual strengths were determi...

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDFI Journal The Journal of the Deep Foundations InstituteSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207