MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109059129 · doi:10.1109/icetce.2011.5775450

The analysis model of interaction of piles-soil-bridge for elevated pile foundation

2011· article· en· W2109059129 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Geotechnical Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileRigidity (electromagnetism)Foundation (evidence)Bridge (graph theory)Structural engineeringHingeFinite element methodMechanism (biology)EngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

the several kinds of pile-soil simplified analysis models were enumerated in the paper. Four analysis models were chose to build the elevated-pile-foundation FEM of a cable-stayed bridge. Then dynamic analysis and push-over analysis were done. The results of dynamic characteristics, pushover curves and form mechanism of the plastic hinges were compared by different simplified models. The truncated model was proposed in the paper because whether anti-push rigidity or plastic-hinge mechanism calculated by this model is most close to prototype. So the paper provided a simplified model for pile group foundation which could simplify calculation and guarantee the calculation precision. Research results can be used for conceptual design of bridges.

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 score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.221 · 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