MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057888681 · doi:10.5539/mas.v2n6p97

The Quality Test to Tarim River Sluice Concrete by the Rebound Method

2008· article· en· W2057888681 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

VenueModern Applied Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeoscience and Mining Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSluiceTarim riverTest methodComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Test (biology)Nondestructive testingEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nondestructive examination (NDE) used for concrete defection is a new method of quality testing for concrete and it is characterized by rapid measurement, high precision and low cost. In this article, we introduce the basic principle and the development application of the rebound method. Taking the engineering project in Tarim Dam as an example, we use the rebound method to test the concrete structure in the Tarim River sluice, introduce the test method and approach of the rebound method, and analyze the test result. The result indicates that the nondestructive examination based on the concrete rebound method is an effective method with simple operation, easy operation, convenient use and high computation precision to test the quality of the concrete with large volume and achieve the requirement of the project.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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