MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969810947 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/21.2.61

Vertical Stress in the Gravel Decking of Log Bridges

2006· article· en· W2969810947 on OpenAlex
C. Kevin Lyons, Matthew Lansdowne

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodBase (topology)StringerStress (linguistics)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyStress fieldRange (aeronautics)Structural engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the forest industry moves into second growth stands with smaller tree diameters the design of gravel-decked log stringer bridges becomes more critical. This article considers the stress field at the base of the gravel decking. The results of this article indicate that stress equations derived from elastic theory for a semi-infinite solid underestimate the magnitude of the maximum vertical stress at the base of the gravel decking. Therefore, a finite element model (FEM) was used to estimate the stress field at the base of the gravel decking. A single equation was fit to the FEM results for a range of gravel depths using a unit load. This equation provides a method for estimating the vertical stress at the base of the gravel decking that is a function of the horizontal distance from the center of the tire contact patch and the total depth of the gravel decking.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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