MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2188013800 · doi:10.1061/9780784479902.009

The Reconstruction of Kodiak Pier 1 Dock Facility to Modern Seismic Design Standards

2016· article· en· W2188013800 on OpenAlexaff
J. C. Daley, Robert Harn, Kimberly Nielsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsBerger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDOCKPierCivil engineeringEngineeringDeckAbutmentHarbourSeismic analysisConstruction engineeringMarine engineeringTransport engineeringComputer scienceStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Alaska department of transportation intends to reconstruct Kodiak Pier 1. The existing pier is a timber dock built in 1965, used for ferry service, bulk fuel, and general cargo operations. The goal is to provide a new, larger dock to increase the deck area to better accommodate the ferry berthing and vehicle loading. This paper examines the design and permitting of a replacement dock including the application of modern displacement-based seismic design standards and environmental challenges at this unique site. Implementation of these design standards is discussed, as well as the real-life challenges, limitations, and risks that remain even after the new design. While the basic design criteria were met, challenges include accommodating large displacements at the beam seats at the abutment and the potential for seismic induced soil failure in the uplands impinging on the dock. Other challenges include regulatory environmental issues related to protection of Stellar sea lions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics→French-language works237,207→