MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007046969 · doi:10.1061/9780784482841.007

Supporting a Bridge between Countries Case Study: Construction of Baudette Bridge Drilled Shafts

2020· article· en· W3007046969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan W. Iverson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Congress 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Christian ministryEngineeringDrillingPierPileCivil engineeringPile capForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MOT), started construction of a new border crossing to replace the existing historic bridge in Baudette, Minnesota. The new bridge was designed to bear on drilled shafts instead of driven pile like the adjacent railroad bridge and previously constructed bridge. The bridge design includes four river piers supported on 8’ diameter drilled shafts up to 100’ below river elevation. Piers one and two are located on the United States side of the river and piers three and four are location on the Canadian side. The piers were constructed in the existing river from barges. The technical challenges and extreme remote location required strong coordination between multiple agencies, engineers, and two federal governments. This case study details the technique shaft, bi-directional test, concrete design and production (mass, tremie, and self-consolidating concrete), thermal integrity profiler results, obstructions, drilling techniques, clean out procedures, and a dynamic working environment in an extreme northern environment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

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 studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeo-Congress 2020Same topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207