Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 1995 a group of young adults were on a school trip to Department of Conservation (DOC) lands on New Zealand's South Island. Moments after 18 of the group had stepped onto a 3 m × 3 m viewing platform it collapsed and fell 30 m. Fourteen people died and the other four were seriously injured. This paper reviews circumstances that contributed to this tragedy. Features of the construction of the timber platform are presented, along with building code requirements that should have been followed but were not. The principal technical reason for the collapse was simple and straightforward; the cantilevered platform was not properly connected to its foundation. More complex however, was the role of non-technical factors that contributed to the collapse. These included failures in project management, provision of qualified engineering input, construction management, compliance with the building code, construction inspection, and posting of load limit signs. The evolution of DOC and project management issues that allowed these failures to occur are examined. Recommendations of the commission of inquiry are presented and resultant changes in DOC's engineering and management procedures are addressed. The issue of accountability and the legal position of DOC present additional interesting twists to this story. The paper concludes with comments by the author that reflect on factors associated with the platform collapse.Key words: platform, collapse, structural failure, building code, timber construction, nailed connections, project management, commission of inquiry, New Zealand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".