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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the mid-nineteenth century, one response to the problem of creating large span structures was the development of the tubular beam. Early beams of this type, for moderate spans, were erected in the 1830s, but it was the construction of large tubes, with spans of over 400 ft (90 m), for the Britannia Bridge that brought this form of structure to the attention of a wider audience. Robert Stephenson and William Fairbairn, designer and detailer of this structure, developed the tubular beam and attempted to have this form of structure used more widely. By 1860, when the Great Victoria Tubular Bridge was opened across the St Lawrence River, in Canada, although many tubular beams had been used, this particular form of beam had fallen out of favour. This paper discusses the differences between the first and last of these large-span bridges, some of the reasons for the changes in attitudes towards this form of structure; and how these were related to new ideas in structural design generally. An attempt is made to identify the people who questioned the economic viability and efficiency of the tubular beam in the technical press and at institutional meetings, and to offer some reasons why it fell from favour and exerted little influence on the subsequent evolution of large span structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it