MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037221430 · doi:10.2749/101686600780481446

Two Structural Composite Lumber Bridges in Northwestern Ontario, Canada

2000· article· en· W2037221430 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Engineering International · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Composite numberEngineered woodEngineeringStructural typeCivil engineeringForensic engineeringStructural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractNorthwestern Ontario is a relatively sparsely populated area of the province. It contains over 500 highway structures, about 45% of which are deteriorated and in need of full or partial replacement. In recent years renewed interest has been generated in the use of timber as a primary load-carrying component for bridge construction. Since high-quality, large-dimension solid lumber is becoming increasingly scarce, interest was directed towards the use of structural composite lumber (SCL). SCL is a structural reconstituted lumber-type product of uniform cross section comprised of parallel-to-the-grain strands, strips or sheets predominantly bonded together parallel to each other using exterior-grade adhesive.KeywordsRushing River Bridge (Ontario, Canada)Wabigoon River Bridge (Ontario, Canada)Structural composite lumberStructural designWood preservative treatment

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.175 · 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