MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149890967 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3670

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ON SUCCESS AND FAILURE CASE STUDIES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN - THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY

2011· article· en· W2149890967 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
P. Berjis, Daman K. Panesar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownEngineeringVariety (cybernetics)Bridge (graph theory)Engineering design processPerspective (graphical)Civil engineeringTransport engineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Civil engineering education at graduate and undergraduate levels commonly draws on structural engineering case studies, such as the 1907 Quebec Bridge Collapse or the 1981 Hyatt Regency Collapse to illustrate the significance of technical engineering design decisions, and their implications. A study of the Gardiner Expressway in a senior level civil engineering design course is valuable for a variety of reasons and are discussed in the paper. Construction of the Fredrick G. Gardiner Expressway, which acts as a main commuter route through Downtown Toronto, began in 1956 and was completed in 1965. Today, at over 50 years old, the expressway is experiencing traffic congestion, and visible degradation of structural materials, and consequently public safety may be compromised. This paper explores the history of the Gardiner Expressway and aspects of its design as it pertains to the current state of the aging infrastructure. There is a need for students to gain an understanding, exercise design skills and the design process in application to current, real world engineering design challenges such as aging structures and infrastructure.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207