MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W217912242

Railroad Lowers Floor of 150-Year-Old Vermont Tunnel

2007· article· en· W217912242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brett Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderpinningTrainExcavationEngineeringBellowsWork (physics)ScheduleFreight trainsEarthworksCivil engineeringArchSchematicCulvertGeotechnical engineeringArchaeologyManagementMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A unique underpinning design and a carefully calibrated construction schedule are key elements in an ambitious and challenging project under the streets of Burlington, Vermont. To accommodate modern, stacked freight cars that cross Vermont on their way between Massachusetts and Canada, the state transportation agency has undertaken to lower railroad tracks by two and a half feet in a narrow rail tunnel underneath Bellows Falls, Vermont. Built in 1851 of stone arch construction, it provides approximately 14 feet of vertical clearance. It is 280 feet long and 12 feet wide, which leaves only three or four inches on either side for modern trains. The tunnel has been excavated and underpinned twice before, in the 1890s and again in 1970. This time, a new underpinning system was installed, using two different designs. Details are given, along with a schematic drawing. Work had to be done around the two freight trains and two Amtrak passenger trains that pass through each day. Geotechnical conditions required constant monitoring for stability. A final three-day work session was required to complete excavation of the tunnel and installation of new continuous steel tracks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.172 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil engineeringSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207