MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923678557 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.2599

Columbia River Skywalk – Turning a Need into a Landmark

2017· article· en· W2923678557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Gubbins, Roman Cap, Nedim Alca

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)LandmarkPedestrianSpan (engineering)Pipeline transportPipeline (software)Civil engineeringConstructabilityEngineeringArchitectural engineeringWork (physics)Transport engineeringConstruction engineeringComputer scienceStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Columbia River Skywalk, designed by COWI North America Ltd., is a new pedestrian / pipeline suspension bridge located in the City of Trail, BC, Canada. The bridge carries pedestrians in addition to two utility pipelines. The bridge spans the Columbia River with a total length of 280 m (main span of 225 m). Aesthetics and cost were key objectives and were achieved through early communication with contractors, use of different construction materials, close work with the pipe designers, and attention to detail. This paper describes the design details developed to increase constructability and to address aesthetics in addition to discussion of the alternate materials, pipe design approach, and features included to address wind and pedestrian loading. In addition, the paper describes how the project evolved from a basic utilitarian pipe crossing to one that provides significant social value to the City of Trail, and COWI's role in it.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueReportSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207