MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030288576 · doi:10.1080/15732479.2013.769014

Fundamental concepts of suspension bridge retrofit

2013· article· en· W2030288576 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

VenueStructure and Infrastructure Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsBuckland & Taylor (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrofittingSuspension (topology)Bridge (graph theory)EngineeringConstruction engineeringCode (set theory)Argument (complex analysis)Computer scienceStructural engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The argument is made that when retrofitting a suspension bridge, the greatest value is obtained when the engineer considers the fundamentals of engineering, rather than simply following the code. By ‘fundamentals’, two aspects are considered. One is a thorough understanding of not only structural behaviour, but also how loads, resistances and safety factors are derived. The other aspect covers the fundamentals of good design (as opposed to good analysis), in preparing designs that can be constructed during short occupancies and are tolerant of problems that might arise during the short construction period between deadlines. The design aspect includes looking for opportunities to reduce maintenance and improve inspection access, and produce such other benefits as may be desired.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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