MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183849858

Reactive powder concrete bridges

2006· article· en· W2183849858 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Rebentrost, B Cavill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)CementitiousSilica fumePedestrianEngineeringCivil engineeringForensic engineeringCementGeographyWaste managementArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactive powder concrete (RPC) is a cementitious material consisting of cement, sand, silica fume, silica flour, admixture and water. Ductal (registered trade name) is an RPC that contains large quantities of steel or organic fibres. The properties of Ductal are unique, and allow designers to create innovative bridge structures of value that are both structurally efficient and provide excellent resistance to aggressive agents. Around the world, many examples of innovative RPC bridges exist. They include the world's first RPC pedestrian bridge, Sherbrooke Footbridge in Quebec, Canada; the 120m span Sunyudu Footbridge in Seoul, Korea; Sakata-Mirai Footbridge in Japan, and more recent highway bridges in Virginia and Iowa, USA. In Australia, the world's first road bridge built using Ductal was completed in October 2004 at Shepherds Creek. This project was used as an evaluation of the material by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), New South Wales. This paper provides a summary of the properties of Ductal, design considerations, and primarily gives examples of reactive powder bridges around the world. (a) For the covering entry of this conference, please see ITRD abstract no. E214936.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207