MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334436015 · doi:10.2749/222137814814067851

Burgoyne Bridge Designed to Respect History of Site and to Create a New Landmark

2014· article· en· W2334436015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Victor Anderson, Joanne Mccall, Jason Marr, Mike DiPaolo, Brent Archibald, S Salib

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)DemolitionLandmarkContext (archaeology)ArchCivil engineeringProcess (computing)Span (engineering)EngineeringArch bridgeStakeholderArchitectural engineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceArchaeologyGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Region of Niagara is in the process of replacing the nearly 100-year-old Burgoyne Bridge in the City of St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. Two key factors were the desire to create an iconic or landmark bridge, and the necessity of maintaining traffic throughout construction. The paper discusses technical considerations including corridor selection, alignment, staging, detailed geometry, the integration of bridge construction and bridge demolition, the consideration of adjacent properties and businesses, and connections to local roadways. The development of the new bridge concept and preliminary design are also explored, including reference to inspirational projects elsewhere, and to the history of heritage bridges at the site. Finally the resulting 330m long twin structural steel box girder viaduct bridge, including a single 125m structural steel arch span, is put into context from technical, environmental, and stakeholder perspectives.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207