MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340626712

2014 Manitoba Southwest Region Bridge Flood Response and Recovery

2015· article· en· W2340626712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T Hengen, R Andrushuk, R Eden, D Monnier

Bibliographic record

VenueTAC 2015: Getting You There Safely - 2015 Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada // ATC: Destination sécurité routière - 2015 Congrès et Exposition de l'Association des transports du Canada · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythCulvertFlooding (psychology)GeographyBridge (graph theory)Forensic engineeringEngineeringArchaeologyGeotechnical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2014, the southwest corner of Manitoba experienced an unprecedented high water level event due to near record precipitation that occurred at the end of June. This rain event caused bridge collapses, major culvert failures and road closures, impacting over 100 bridge structures owned by Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT), crippling local access and transportation in the area. The Assiniboine River system also simultaneously experienced a record high water level event, similar to previous record flood levels in 1976 and 2011, putting several major MIT bridges at risk. A state of emergency was declared by the Province of Manitoba in portions of the province and 60 Manitoba rural municipalities declared a state of local emergency in response to flood water impacts. MIT bridge and highway personnel were tasked with responding to this flood event to assess damage and determine plans of action to restore access to flood damaged bridge and road infrastructure. An estimated $70 million in damage occurred to MIT’s bridges and province-wide, an estimated $220 million in damage for Disaster Financial Assistance, related to the 2014 summer flooding, was sustained. This paper will expand on the following points: 1. The background of the flood event and affected areas; 2. The impact to the area residents and stakeholders, including oil production companies and agricultural producers in the region; 3. MIT’s action plan implemented immediately during the flood event; 4. How MIT personnel assessed flood damage to structures; 5. How MIT temporarily repaired bridge and culvert structures to re-establish interim restricted access; and 6. MIT’s process for fast-tracking replacement of severely damaged structures by direct negotiations with engineering service.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTAC 2015: Getting You There Safely - 2015 Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada // ATC: Destination sécurité routière - 2015 Congrès et Exposition de l'Association des transports du CanadaSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207