MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330819216 · doi:10.1061/40889(201)199

Quebec Bridge Inspection Using Common Nondestructive and Destructive Testing Techniques

2006· article· en· W2330819216 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2006 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNondestructive testingHammerSchmidt hammerPierDestructive testingUltrasonic testingStructural engineeringEngineeringUltrasonic sensorAcousticsCompressive strengthMaterials testingMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques are available to evaluate the condition of existing concrete structures. These NDT techniques can help to determine in-situ load carrying capabilities and in turn be used to help develop a cost effective rehabilitation solution. In this project, the four pier caps of Denver Colorado' Quebec Street Bridge over Air Lawn Road were inspected using several different NDT techniques. These tests included: carpenter hammer sounding, Schmidt hammer, and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) testing including tomography. In addition visual testing was used to identify crack patterns and spalling conditions. Contour plotting of the NDT data was completed on individual and combined NDT techniques to better determine the condition of the piers. Equal weighted percentages were assumed in combining the hammer sounding, Schmidt, and direct ultrasonic transmission data. Although hammer sounding and Schmidt rebound techniques were used to determine the condition of the exterior layers of the piers, ultrasound and tomography were used to determine the condition of the interior. Various tomographic slices were completed between adjacent sides and from face to face. After the NDT tests were completed, the data were analyzed, interpreted and recommendations were given to further destructively examine local areas of the piers. Destructive tests included compressive strength, chloride, and petrographic testing. The specific detail of all testing methodologies used in this study will be discussed further along with the specific results for the northwest pier cap.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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