Imaging Piles in Bridge Foundations Using Tomography and Horizontal Seismic Reflector Tracing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of aging bridges require a reliable inspection of their condition to determine if they are safe, or if they need to be rehabilitated or replaced. The direct assessment of foundations for existing structures would require excavation or, at least, an extensive drilling program. Such an effort would be extremely costly and impractical. It could also compromise the integrity and stability of the structure itself. The authors present the inspection technique that combines seismic cross-hole tomography and 3D imaging of seismic reflectors. The measurements are conducted using three drill holes that surround the investigated underground foundation components. The technique produces images of piles or other structural features through triangulation of reflected waves recorded at several points along each of drill holes. The authors also recognize new challenges when imaging a cluster of piles in a soft ground due to a need for seismic waves of the proper wavelength, and due to an intense dispersion of seismic waves in the space between the piles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it