MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099066387 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r215-03

Continuous Modeling for Design, Construction and Monitoring: A Case Study

2003· article· en· W2099066387 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brian Bishop, Ronald B. Scheckenberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsPhilips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores, by way of a case study, the fundamental connection between theoretical modeling and practical design, construction, and monitoring of an engineered solution to a problem. The modeling associated with this design fom1s Chapter 4 in the sixth volume of this monograph series (Scheckenberger and Guther, 1998). This present chapter is intended both to demonstrate the practical execution of a design created in part though detailed modeling, and to act as a bridge between the pre-design modeling and postdesign modeling that supports a project such as this. A third chapter, after a three-year monitoring period, could return to a more modeling-based theme, outlining how the original models need to be revised with real post-construction data collected in the field.

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 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 score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207