MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482248492 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2016-0083

Case study of use of falling weight deflectometer to investigate railway infrastructure constructed upon soft subgrades

2016· article· en· W2482248492 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Parisa Haji Abdulrazagh, Michael T. Hendry

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsFalling weight deflectometerSubgradeGeotechnical engineeringDeflection (physics)SubstructureStructural engineeringAxle loadEngineeringLeveeRutGeologyAxleAsphaltMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing was conducted along with embankment and subgrade sampling over 210 km (130 miles) of Canadian National Railway’s Lac La Biche Subdivision, which runs between Edmonton and Fort McMurray, as a part of a larger investigation of the line for increased axle loads. The resulting measurements were evaluated for their ability to identify soft subgrades. Two analyses were conducted to this end. First, the statistical distribution of peak deflections recorded by the FWD was investigated for different types of subgrade material. Second, the properties of track substructure were studied by characterizing the deflection time histories using a dynamic model of a single mass on a viscoelastic foundation and least-squares curve fitting. Four characteristic types of deflection time histories were identified for differing substructure conditions. Simplified dynamic modelling of railway track substructure showed that where relatively thick embankment exists over subgrade, the response of track is overdamped behavior.

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)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207