HEAVYLIFTING OPERATIONS FOR THE ASSEMBLY OF THE ARCH OF BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main requirements for the Walterdale Bridge Replacement in Edmonton was to minimize the impact on the river during the construction. This was a big challenge, as the use of ordinary construction methods such as falseworks and cranes was almost impossible. Furthermore, the river was not navigable. Consequently, all water equipment used, such us barges, had to be modularized, land transported and assembled directly on site, limiting the capacity. Then, it was decided to split the construction of the arch in different stages, performing several special heavylifting activities. Firstly, a partial arch (the central part), weighing 1,000 metric ton was manufactured on a riverbank. After that, it was skidded and loaded-out onto two modular barges, which moved the segment to the area between the abutments. By means of two towers specifically assembled, which included four strand jacks, the arch was then partially lifted and connected to additional sections of the arch, creating a new 1,800 T and 146-m long arch. Following this, the new arch was also lifted to its final position, in a similar way. This paper describes all the special heavylifting operations and the equipment used to assemble the arch of the bridge, facing with severe weather conditions, such as temperatures down to-20ºC and a river partially frozen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".