Bibliographic record
Abstract
On June 17, 1958, 79 workers constructing the new Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver, BC, Canada, were plunged into Burrard Inlet when a portion of the bridge collapsed during construction, resulting in the loss of 19 lives, including 15 ironworkers, 2 engineers, a painter and a commercial diver who drowned a few days later while trying to recover a body. Twenty others were seriously injured. Following the collapse, the British Columbia Government established a Royal Commission to examine the cause(s) of the collapse and the lessons learned as a result. After an extensive investigation, it was discovered that a temporary bent, designed by an inexperienced engineer and inadequately checked by a senior engineer failed, which lead to the collapse of two spans. Unfortunately, those gentlemen were on the bridge when it failed and both were killed. There are many valuable lessons from the Commission Reports related to the roles and responsibilities of contractor’s engineers in their design of the falsework that was intended to support a portion of span number 5 until the structural steel erection had reached Pier 15 and for the responsibilities and duties of engineers in post-disaster inspections and investigations. This presentation will provide an overview of the collapse and summarize the effects of the disaster and the findings as to what caused the collapse. Some of these lessons will be highlighted in this paper. It was a combination of engineering mistakes, flawed material and procedures, and inappropriate safety standards that resulted in failure. There are numerous incidents of bridge failures after construction. This paper focuses on failure during construction. In 1994, the bridge was officially renamed the “Ironworkers Memorial Second Narrows Crossing” in honour of the workers who died on that day.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".