MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605849323 · doi:10.11159/icgre17.1

Innovative Solutions for Construction on Problematic Soils in Civil Infrastructure Developments

2017· article· en· W2605849323 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hany El Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicrobial Applications in Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoil waterCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of integral abutments to accommodate thermal expansion of bridges is common practice in Canada, and is also seen throughout the World. The main benefit of integral abutments is the complete elimination of the expansion joints and bearings, which are expensive to install and maintain during the lifetime of the bridge. During seasonal temperature change, the structure undergoes expansion and contraction, moving toward and away from the backfill. This movement causes sequentially variations in stresses in the backfill behind the bridge, in earth pressures acting on the abutment, and in the stresses in the supporting piles. Integral abutment bridges are generally characterized by their complex soil-structure interaction of the abutment walls and foundations as they are subjected to cyclic loading on a daily basis. As the backfill soil of such bridges is subjected to loading-unloading-reloading process during which the stiffness of the soils keeps on changing, the soil stress-strain behavior is complicated and special modeling procedure is needed. This paper investigates different aspects of integral abutment bridges analysis and there implications on the predictability of the employed finite element model.

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 score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicMicrobial Applications in Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207