MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323091252 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609-pdb.177.180

Detection Of Buried Timber Trestles Using Surface Waves

2008· article· en· W2323091252 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Tallavó, Giovanni Cascante, Mahesh D. Pandey

Bibliographic record

Venue21st EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophoneGeologyContour lineMorlet waveletWaveletDispersion (optics)Surface waveEnergy (signal processing)AcousticsRemote sensingSeismologyWavelet transformOpticsDiscrete wavelet transformPhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results from multi-channel analysis surface waves tests (MASW) conducted on an earth embankment to detect the location of rotten buried trestles in two different sections (A and B). In Section A, the locations of the trestles are known as well as the soil properties; thus, this section is used for calibration purposes. In Section B, the trestle locations are unknown. A seismic array of 24 geophones with a geophone spacing of 0.5 m is used. Different signal processing techniques were used for the analysis of surface waves to compute dispersion curves, power spectral density functions, distance-frequency contour plot, and wavelet transforms. Numercial and experimental results show that MASW tests were able to detect the location of buried trestles. MASW tests with a low-energy source (sledgehammer test) clearly show the location of buried trestles. Timber trestles can be detected by plotting the mean square value of the vibration energy. The effects of the trestles are also observed in the dispersion curves, the distance-frequency contour plot, and the Morlet wavelet transform. Not all source locations showed the location of timber trestles, likely because of the stronger effect of the ballast layer in this test.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue21st EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental ProblemsSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207