Bibliographic record
Abstract
The caisson sinking method is one way to construct underground concrete structures, such as bridge piers, intake structures, pump houses and dumper pits, in soils with a high water table. In this method, a caisson is constructed on the unexcavated site, with the caisson comprising only the walls of the final structure. Then excavating is conducted inside the walls so that the caisson sinks under its own weight. This article describes the use of the caisson method in the construction of three large underground structures in Vancouver, British Columbia. The structures were a pump house at a wastewater treatment plant and two rail-car dumper pits. The first and largest dumper pit presented the biggest construction challenges. Many of the problems were encountered in the final stage of the operation, when the caisson was taken to its final depth. Sloughing was widespread and progress was very slow. It was found that boulders were holding up the steel shoe that was placed at the bottom of the exterior walls to assist the sinking process. Several contingency methods were needed to allow the caisson to reach its final depth. Refinements to the cassion sinking procedure based on this first experience allowed for easier construction of the other underground structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".