MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610869002 · doi:10.5623/cig2016-405

Movements of the Quebec Bridge's Suspended Span Measured by GNSS Technology

2016· article· en· W2610869002 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rock Santerre, Youssef Smadi, Stéphanie Bourgon

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOMATICA · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsSpan (engineering)Bridge (graph theory)Transversal (combinatorics)GNSS applicationsWind speedMeteorologyCantileverGeodesyEnvironmental scienceMovement (music)PierAtmospheric sciencesStructural engineeringGeologyPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringAcousticsGlobal Positioning SystemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Quebec Bridge was completed in 1917 and it is still the longest cantilever bridge in the world. Overall, the actual movements of its suspended span, as detected by GNSS (between 2012 and 2013), are in fair agreement with the original design calculations: for the train loading effect on the vertical movement (17 cm for one freight train); the transversal wind load effect on the transversal movement (32 cm for a wind speed of 170 km/h); and the temperature loading effect on the ver ti cal movement of the suspended span (3.2 cm for a 50°C temperature variation). Further movements have been detected by GNSS technology, namely: the transversal and longitudinal movements of the suspended bridge span due to train passages (11 cm transversally, at the top of the suspended span, and 1 cm longitudinally); the transversal movement of the bridge caused by solar radiation (differential) conditions on both sides of the bridge (5 cm for high solar radiation values); and the longitudinal movement of the suspended span of the Quebec Bridge at temperatures lower than 6°C (7 cm to −25°C).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGEOMATICASame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207