Back-analysis of a tunnelling case history: A numerical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rapid Light Rail Transit (LRT) system was constructed in the City of Edmonton, Canada to connect the downtown area to the northeast suburbs in the 1970s and later to the south side. The stretch of the LRT passing through the heavily developed downtown area was constructed underground. The underground stations were constructed using the cut-and-cover technique and were connected with two twin circular tunnels about 6.2 m in diameter, and spaced at 11 m centerline to centerline. The tunnels were constructed using a Lovat open face Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) with the west-bound tunnel, referred to herein as the first tunnel, constructed first followed by the east-bound tunnel, referred to as the second tunnel.The primary lining system consisted of steel ribs spaced at 1.22 to 1.53 m center to centre, and 100 × 150 mm lagging placed between the webs of successive ribs. The secondary lining consisted of cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Detailed information on the lining activation method can be found elsewhere, e.g. Eisenstein & Thomson (1978) and El-Nahhas (1980).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".