MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025722036 · doi:10.1119/1.2201854

The failure of the Tacoma Bridge: A physical model

2006· article· en· W2025722036 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)PhysicsConfusionDeckVortexInstabilityStructural engineeringMechanicsEngineeringPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cause of the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge has been a topic of much debate and confusion over the years. Many mischaracterizations of the observed phenomena have limited the understanding of the collapse even though there has always been an abundance of evidence in favor of a negative damping model. Negative damping, or positive feedback, is responsible for large amplitude oscillations in many systems, from musical instruments to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure. We discuss some of the more well known examples of positive feedback, and then show how the interaction of the wind with the oscillating bridge, especially the development of large scale vortices above and below the deck of the bridge, led to such a positive feedback instability. We support our model by computational, experimental, and historical data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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