MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466504485 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0088

Post-construction performance of induced trench rigid culverts

2016· article· en· W2466504485 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Benjamin L. McGuigan, Olajide Samuel Oshati, Bethanie A. Parker, Arun J. Valsangkar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)University of New Brunswick
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsCulvertTrenchLateral earth pressureGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induced trench construction is commonly used to reduce earth pressures on rigid circular and box culverts. Most of the reported literature pertains to the performance of induced trench culverts during construction and shortly after construction. This paper addresses the post-construction performance of induced trench culverts. First, results of field inspection reports are presented as an indirect assessment of performance of 90 induced trench culverts installed in New Brunswick that have been in service for up to 24 years. Second, earth pressure measurements are presented from three case studies where prototype installations were monitored over periods ranging from 4 to 9 years. The case studies presented include a single circular culvert, a cast-in-place double-cell box culvert, and a twin circular culvert installation. The fill heights above the instrumented structures varied from 19 to 25 m. All the available data from both the field inspections and earth pressure measurements indicate that the culverts installed in induced trenches are performing in a satisfactory manner.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207