MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559857573 · doi:10.1680/jenhh.16.00012

Redecking the Hogarth Flyover, London

2016· article· en· W2559857573 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jack Rose, Yunus Hussein, Amrit Ghose

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsRoundaboutTransport engineeringDeckWork (physics)ScheduleEngineeringClosure (psychology)Forensic engineeringCivil engineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hogarth Flyover is one of west London’s most notorious flyovers, carrying 10 500 vehicles over Hogarth Roundabout every day. The 250 m long, single-lane structure was built in 1971 as a temporary measure to reduce traffic congestion at the roundabout, with an estimated design life of around 5 years – and is still in use today after nearly 50 years. Following a detailed review and structural assessment by Conway Aecom, the structure was deemed to be in a seriously poor condition. A substandard bridge management system was instigated, followed by an accelerated scheme to demolish and reconstruct the flyover’s concrete deck. To meet the 6-week closure window imposed by Transport for London, repairs were made by clamping new concrete deck panels to the existing steel work supports, which were also repaired. The restorations also coincided with the summer school holidays, minimising the disruption to traffic. Hogarth Flyover was reopened to the public on 31 August 2014, 10 h ahead of schedule. This paper outlines the logistical and technical challenges that were encountered in ensuring that the flyover remained open despite its condition and returning it to a condition fit for its status as a strategic infrastructure asset.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.147 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and HeritageSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207