MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128557522 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.0421

Rosedale Overhead: Functional Upgrades, Structural Rehabilitation and Seismic Retrofit

2017· article· en· W3128557522 on OpenAlexaff
Sean O’Hagan, Keith Holmes, Reza Saiedi, Saqib Khan, Bruce Hamersley

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)Hatch (Canada)WSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirderStructural engineeringDeckBridge (graph theory)Span (engineering)EngineeringOverhead (engineering)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rosedale Overhead is a 77m long two-lane crossing of BC’s Highway 9 over a busy railway track. Built in 1956, the current improvements include widening, new barriers, seismic retrofit and structural rehabilitation, including full concrete deck replacement. The initial design considered retaining and over-coating the existing girders. However, the final design was the outright replacement of the existing girders, with the new girders configured as continuous spans. This concept was preferred because of the lower costs, a savings partly attributed to the reduced number of girder lines from eight to five and bearings by more than half. A reliable seismic load path was established by infilling the bents either side of the rail tracks and locking the bridge ends with new semi-integral abutments. All other bents were left un-retrofitted with low-friction PTFE bearings to reduce lateral bent demands and avoid foundationupgrades.

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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.009

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207