MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620901608 · doi:10.1061/9780784480700.032

Site-Specific Geotechnical Resistance Factors for a Large Industrial Project in Canada

2017· article· en· W2620901608 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter Thomson, Dennis Becker, Gennaro Esposito, Jim J. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Risk 2017 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)Golder Associates (Canada)
FundersFederal Highway AdministrationShell Canada
KeywordsPileEngineeringReliability (semiconductor)Civil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringRedundancy (engineering)Foundation (evidence)Geotechnical investigationResistance FactorsReliability engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Values for reliability index and associated geotechnical resistance factors for design of buildings are given in applicable codes (e.g. National Building Code of Canada (NBCC)). However, the use of the NBCC may not be strictly applicable or efficient for industrial structures with limited to no occupancy or do not satisfy the definition of building. The owner and their geotechnical consultant collaborated to produce project and site-specific geotechnical resistance factors for the design of driven steel pipe piles. Geotechnical investigation and pile load test results were used to confirm the accuracy and bias of two geotechnical prediction methods. Target reliability indices were selected based on risk considerations, structure type and through consideration of redundancy in pile groups. The derived resistance factors were sensitive to the prediction method used, which highlights the importance of selecting appropriate characteristic values for design. It was estimated that applying the results of this study would reduce foundation construction costs for this project by 40% and save millions of dollars.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeo-Risk 2017Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207