MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753586652 · doi:10.1061/9780784481035.014

Collapse of the Second Narrows Bridge during Construction

2017· article· en· W2753586652 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstruction Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207