MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124878418 · doi:10.1061/9780784412367.073

1 Dubai—Engineering and Optimizing a Mega-Structure

2012· article· en· W2124878418 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

VenueStructures Congress 2012 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsRowan Williams Davies & Irwin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructabilityKey (lock)IntuitionEngineeringConstruction engineeringProduct designNew product developmentComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineering managementArchitectural engineeringProduct (mathematics)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessComputer securityMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following paper outlines key challenges inherent in the design scheme of a super-tall linked tower (mega-structure) and the unique considerations associated with developing the design of such a complex project. Although 1 Dubai was put on hold as a consequence of the global financial crisis in October 2008, the early phases of building optimization, high performance material utilization, and constructability considerations provided unique lessons that can be applied in future ventures. Intuition and experience on comparable projects is essential in their design but so is keeping a thoughtful approach to building system performance and remaining flexible enough to allow modifications in response to unexpected challenges. To attain an end product that is both rational and efficient, all team members must be able to respond quickly and in a coordinated fashion.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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