MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180892947 · doi:10.1139/l2012-045

Damage to bridges due to the 27 February 2010 Chile earthquake

2013· article· en· W2180892947 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Denis Mitchell, Sharlie Huffman, Robert Tremblay, Murat Saatçioğlu, Dan Palermo, René Tinawi, David T. Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPolytechnique MontréalCarleton UniversityMinistry of Transportation of OntarioMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringGirderEngineeringForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringShear (geology)Bridge (graph theory)Settlement (finance)LeveeGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a summary of the damage to bridges in the M w 8.8 Chile earthquake of 27 February 2010. Lessons from the different types of structural damage observed on concrete and steel bridges are discussed. The important roles played by soil liquefaction, settlement and embankment failures are highlighted. Aspects such as shear failure of steel piles, shear failure of concrete substructure elements, failures and severe buckling of steel braces, failures of shear keys and restrainers at supports, and damage to girders due to lack of diaphragms are described. Many examples of loss of superstructure support are presented. Skew supports and multi-span simply supported bridges were particularly susceptible to loss of support. Several aspects of the Chilean bridge design code are discussed and compared with North American codes (CSA S6 and AASHTO).

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207