MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027811739 · doi:10.1061/41165(397)337

Case Study—Railway Embankment Widening for CN Rail and GO Transit

2011· article· en· W2027811739 on OpenAlexaffabout
I. Glenn Caverson, D Lowry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleTransport engineeringRail transitTrack (disk drive)Service (business)Railway engineeringLeveeThird railIntersection (aeronautics)EngineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GO Transit, The Greater Toronto Area's commuter rail/bus system is currently undergoing an expansion in service. Part of this expansion is an improvement in the limited rail service between Toronto and Hamilton Ontario. In some cases, in order to meet the increased commuter volume, it is necessary to add additional tracks to accommodate the existing and future rail traffic. This is the case on the Lakeshore West Line where a third track was only the way to meet demand. In the Lorne Park area of Mississauga, existing conditions did not provide sufficient room for a number of rail embankments to be widened without the use of an earth retention system. Numerous retaining wall and over-steepened slope options were considered for seven distinct locations. The ultimate solution was a prototype Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wall that combined a steel fascia with geosynthetic reinforcement. This case study will examine the various aspects of this project from the initial stages of design, through the various solution options, to the development of the final solution. With a restricted time schedule and construction constraints, the paper will also detail how those major obstacles were successfully overcome in the completion of this project.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207