MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254106974

Effect of gaff design on linemen's perception of the climbability of red pine utility poles of pre-selected wood hardness

2001· article· en· W2254106974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roland Gilbert, Andre Besner, Yves Beauchamp, Pascal Octeau

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromated copper arsenateEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a gaff adapted for chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in order to improve the linemen's psychophysical perception of pole climbability compared to the standard gaff used by Hydro-Quebec's staff. Three red pine poles were selected in arange ofwood hardness where the linemen's acceptability level is around 30 to 50 percent (hard poles) and three others in a range showing generally over 80 percent of acceptance (soft poles). In a first series of tests, psychophysical data collected from 16 line workers showed that the CCA-adapted gaff provided a significant but limited improvement (10% to 15%) in the perception for the hard poles. Conversely, the use of the CCA-adapted design in conjunction with the soft poles led to a slight but significant deterioration in the linemen's appreciation. These soft pre-selected poles, which met total acceptance with the standard gaff, were found to be unacceptable by about one-third of the linemen when the CCA-adapted gaffwas used. In a second series of tests, the same workers were sequentially equipped with an instrumented climber from each gaff design to record gaff penetration and gaff impact values. The results confirmed the possibility of using a combination of these physical parameters for estimating the linemen's perception when assessing the hard poles. However, the situation reported by the linemen for the soft poles cannot be followed with the same level of discrimination. In a third series of tests, a mechanical device that directly provides a climbability index was used to assess the poles. As expected, the measured values showed trends very close to those observed with the instrumented climbers. From these results, it is obvious that a third parameter such as gaff withdrawal force should be measured to use the setup for discriminating the gaff effect over these pre-selected soft poles.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Products JournalSame topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207