MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design Recommendations for Externally Restrained Highway Bridge Decks

2001· article· en· W2109880686 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. Thorburn, Aftab A. Mufti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaDalhousie University
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsServiceability (structure)SlabStructural engineeringCorrosionDeckBridge (graph theory)EngineeringBridge deckDesign loadForensic engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A severe maintenance penalty exists for composite multibeam highway bridges in areas where the use of deicing chemicals is prevalent. This maintenance concern is largely due to the corrosion of embedded steel reinforcing bars and the attendant concrete degradation in the deck slab. Transverse steel straps, placed below the concrete slab, eliminate the deleterious effects of corrosion on the concrete. Further, the straps can be designed to provide the restraint necessary to promote the development of internal arching in the concrete slab in response to a concentrated load. A design procedure is presented for an externally restrained highway bridge deck. The method has been developed, based on the Canadian Limit States design philosophy, considering both the strength and serviceability requirements. It is demonstrated that the ultimate strength requirements dictate the external restraint requirements, and a numerical example of the design procedure is given.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bridge EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207