MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188188827 · doi:10.1139/t2012-094

Performance of two cast-in-place box culverts under high embankments

2012· article· en· W2188188827 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Olajide Samuel Oshati, Arun J. Valsangkar, Allison B. Schriver

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsCulvertGeotechnical engineeringOverburdenLateral earth pressureTrenchEngineeringGeologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two cast-in-place reinforced concrete box culverts (Longs Creek and McBean Brook culverts) with similar geometry were instrumented to monitor earth pressures. The Longs Creek structure is a 7.30 m wide by 4.53 m high double-cell box under 14.10 m of fill, constructed using the positive projection installation (PPI) method. The McBean Brook structure is a 6.75 m wide by 4.65 m high double-cell box culvert under 25.10 m of fill, constructed using the induced trench installation (ITI) method. Earth pressures were monitored as the fill height above the culvert was increased for both structures. Data from the McBean Brook culvert at a fill height of 14.40 m are compared with the data from the Longs Creek culvert. The similar geometries of these two prototype culverts provide a unique opportunity to compare their performance based on the two different installation methods. For a comparable height of soil cover, measured vertical earth pressures on the roofs were 0.94 and 0.56 times the overburden pressures for ...

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207