MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068058708 · doi:10.5539/mas.v7n9p47

Study of Cable Force of Construction Control and Alignment Control of Main Girders for Long-Span Railway Cable-Stayed Bridges

2013· article· en· W2068058708 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zengshun Chen, Cheng Zhang, Jianting Zhou, Song Jun, Chun-Rong Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirderStructural engineeringTension (geology)Span (engineering)Internal forcesBendingComputer scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialCompression (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cable force of construction control and alignment control of main girders are key factors for long-span railway cable-stayed bridges. To make both stayed cable force and alignment of main girders under ideal state simultaneously during construction, based on first-order optimum algorithm, this article regards bending strain energy as an objective function, and then the initial tension can be known through iteration. After analyzing the impact of some factors on alignment control of main girders, such as initial tension of stayed cables and construction load, the formula of alignment control about main girders can be obtained. Finally, taking one of the world's largest railway cable-stayed bridges for an example, the article calculates the initial tension of stayed cables, and analyses the effects of some factors on alignment control of long-span railway cable-stayed bridges. It turns out that this method can keep the alignment and internal force of main girders reasonable.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207