MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317978838 · doi:10.1061/41016(314)118

Confederation Bridge Ice Force Monitoring

2008· article· en· W2317978838 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas G. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstrumentation (computer programming)Data acquisitionBridge (graph theory)Ice formationRemote sensingEngineeringComputer scienceGeologyAtmospheric sciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a summary of the ice force monitoring program and the results that have been obtained since Confederation Bridge opened in 1997. The paper summarizes the rationale for an ice force monitoring system, the objectives of the system, and describes the instrumentation and associated data acquisition system. Summaries of the results are then presented in the form of the observations related to the behaviour of the ice against the instrumented piers, the ice data that has been observed/measured and summarizes the statistics associated with these ice observations. These observations include information on the effectiveness of the conical piers in clearing ice and the forms of ice failure that have been observed. The paper describes the process by which ice loads are determined from the instrumentation data, and summarizes the results related to ice forces and pressures. Finally, the paper describes an extreme ice loading event.

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)0.001
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 score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2008Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207