MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792045066 · doi:10.1680/jmaen.2017.25

Briefing: Design and construction of Canary Wharf temporary floating road, London, UK

2017· article· en· W2792045066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cliff Ohl, Benjamin Radcliffe, Harvey Richardson, Ashley Handley-Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Maritime Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWharfModular designConstructabilityEngineeringDeckCivil engineeringTruckTransport engineeringMarine engineeringStructural engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canary Wharf floating road was constructed to provide access for articulated lorries to a congested construction site, the Newfoundland project in central London. The 80 m × 15 m floating road incorporates a modular steel roadway deck spanning over 81 modular Linkflote pontoons. Linkspan ramps for vehicle access and a pontoon lateral restraint system are designed to minimise impact on the existing dock wall (grade II listed) by connecting to the Newfoundland Building's ground-floor structure (under construction). With constructability a principal issue, all structural components were designed as modular steel assemblies, transported using standard road vehicles and assembled on site. A structural model, compatible with building information modelling, including all components and interfaces, was produced to develop the design, produce fabrication and installation drawings and ensure integration with the permanent works. The floating road provides an essential platform for transport, materials handling and storage for the Newfoundland project.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.021

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Maritime EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207