Super-long span bridge aerodynamics: on-going results of the TG3.1 benchmark test – Step 1.2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is part of a series of publications aimed at the divulgation of the results of the 3-step benchmark proposed by the IABSE Task Group 3.1 to define reference results for the validation of the software that simulate the aeroelastic stability and the response to the turbulent wind of super-long span bridges. Step 1 is a numerical comparison of different numerical models both a sectional model (Step 1.1) and a full bridge (Step 1.2) are studied. Step 2 will be the comparison of predicted results and experimental tests in wind tunnel. Step 3 will be a comparison against full scale measurements. The results of Step 1.1 related to the response of a sectional model were presented to the last IABSE Symposium in Nantes 2018. In this paper, the results of Step 1.2 related to the response long-span full bridge are presented in this paper both in terms of aeroelastic stability and buffeting response, comparing the results coming from several TG members.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".