MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035115398 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.1429

Conceptual Design, Detailed Design, and Construction of the Terwillegar Park Stressed Ribbon Footbridge

2017· article· en· W3035115398 on OpenAlexaffabout
R Ellis, David MacLaggan, Carl Savard, Jason Reske

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecast concreteContext (archaeology)Civil engineeringSchedulePrestressed concreteBridge (graph theory)EngineeringSpan (engineering)Conceptual designRibbonArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceGeographyArchaeologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2013, the City of Edmonton called for proposals for a new 300 m footbridge across the North Saskatchewan River in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Consultants were challenged to develop concepts that were innovative, fit the context of the deep natural river valley, and meet strict budgetary and schedule requirements. In October 2016, the longest and first multi-span stressed ribbon bridge in Canada was opened to the public. The Terwillegar Park Footbridge was designed by Stantec Consulting Ltd for the City of Edmonton and forms a key link in the river valley park system in that city. Stressed ribbon bridges can be described as precast concrete structures that are erected segmentally on cables and post-tensioned to achieve a continuous, slender, prestressed concrete structure. In this paper, the conceptual and preliminary design process of the Terwillegar Park Footbridge is described and challenges encountered in the design and construction of this elegant and innovative structure are shared.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207