MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313439000 · doi:10.1061/9780784413692.193

Environmental and Design Challenges for a 1,500 mm Diameter Steel Pipeline River Crossing

2014· article· en· W2313439000 on OpenAlexaffabout
G.H.F. Mak

Bibliographic record

VenuePipelines 2014 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsCameco (Canada)
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsCofferdamSiltationEnvironmental scienceBankWater qualityPopulationHabitatHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringCivil engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringSedimentEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The City of Saskatoon (City), with a population of 215,000, operates a water treatment plant on the west bank of the South Saskatchewan River (SSR) and a river pump station located across the river on the east bank. A 1,500-mm diameter pipeline river crossing connecting the pump station and the water treatment plant was required and subsequently constructed using an open-cut cofferdam method. This paper discusses the design team's challenges in formulating the final design in support of the cofferdam open-cut construction method. Interesting design elements included a river hydraulic assessment, the use of rock spur, articulated concrete mat to protect the earthen cofferdam, siltation curtains for aquatic habitat and water quality protection, river quality monitoring, and fish habitat compensation. The pipeline crossing was successfully completed within the specified nine months' timeline and allocated budget. Some of the lessons learned during the project include adjustment of the construction sequence and the importance of hydraulic analysis and robust cofferdam erosion control.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.207
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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePipelines 2014Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207