MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045506857 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0494

Seismic soil–culvert interaction

2015· article· en· W2045506857 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCulvertGeotechnical engineeringBending momentStructural engineeringCentrifugeGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Box culverts may be constructed in active seismic areas, where ground shaking or ground failures can impose considerable earth pressures on them. In this study, the seismic response of box culverts was investigated experimentally and numerically. A series of scaled centrifuge tests was performed and subjected to three different earthquake signals, with different amplitudes and frequencies. Two values of culvert wall thickness and two values of sand relative density were considered in the experimental program. Experimental results are presented in terms of comparisons of seismic bending moments. These results were used to calibrate and verify two-dimensional numerical models developed using the computer program FLAC. The verified models were then used to investigate the effect of earthquake intensity and frequency, height of soil cover, and culvert thickness on the seismic bending moments for the different culvert sections. Based on the analysis results, charts are presented to aid in the seismic design of box culverts.

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 score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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