MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043743514 · doi:10.1139/t08-126

Full-scale testing of draped nets for rock fall protection

2009· article· en· W2043743514 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPolitecnico di Torino
KeywordsPolygon meshScale (ratio)RockfallGeologyComputer scienceTest (biology)Geotechnical engineeringMining engineeringForensic engineeringEngineeringComputer graphics (images)CartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The installation of draped meshes, metallic nets installed in such a way as to lie against the rock slope surface, is one of the most common ways to protect roads and infrastructure against the detachment of small rock elements in areas prone to rock fall. Despite their frequent and worldwide application, there are no universally recognized guidelines or technical standards to help engineers in their correct design, and no full-scale test results are available where the whole system, composed of several interacting structural components, is tested. In this paper, a full-scale test procedure, which is able to permit the evaluation of the global behaviour of a draped mesh, is described and the results of tests carried out on widely used meshes are presented and discussed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · 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