MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measured Responses of a Corrugated Steel Ellipse Culvert at Different Cover Depths

2020· article· en· W3083871456 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCulvertBending momentStructural engineeringThrustBendingGeotechnical engineeringMoment (physics)Flexural strengthYield (engineering)EngineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical design and installation methods for corrugated steel culverts involve consideration of a minimum burial depth and most current North American design codes consider failure only due to excessive circumferential force in the conduit walls (i.e., hoop thrust). However, recent studies have shown that the bending moment is often the more dominant behavior for corrugated steel culverts at shallow cover. To address this issue, an elliptical corrugated steel culvert was tested under simulated vehicle loading at depths ranging from 0.1 to 1.2 m. The results show that, under a wheel pair load, a peak negative bending moment, and thrust, force is consistently developed at the crown with positive bending moments adjacent to the crown and near the shoulders. When the flexural and circumferential force results are extrapolated to the yield point and compared, the bending moment values are up to five times larger than the yield limit while thrust values are only 60% of the limit. The test results suggest that bending moments should be considered during the design and installation of corrugated steel culverts at shallow cover.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.186 · 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