MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134036420 · doi:10.2749/newyork.2019.2720

Burlington Bay Skyway Hanger Fail-Safe System

2019· article· en· W3134036420 on OpenAlexaffabout
Konstantinos Kris Mermigas, Martin Krall, E. C. M. Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeckTrussRedundancy (engineering)Structural engineeringSpan (engineering)EngineeringBayChristian ministryChannel (broadcasting)Marine engineeringTelecommunicationsCivil engineeringReliability engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Burlington Bay Skyway was built in 1954 and rehabilitated in the 1980s. A continuous three span truss rises from below the deck up over the roadway across the 151 m central span over a navigational channel into Hamilton Harbour. The deck system hangs from the truss and the consequences of a hanger impact could be severe and include prolonged closure, impediment of the navigation channel, and could trigger a progressive collapse of the suspended deck system arising from simply supported stringers and floor trusses. The regional economic impact of bridge closure on one of Ontario’s major arteries is considerable. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is adding redundancy trusses to transfer the load from the deck system to adjacent hangers in the event of hanger loss. Each truss runs longitudinally below the edge of the deck through the main span, within the depth of the existing transverse floor trusses. The proactive retrofit improves redundancy of the deck system and keeps the bridge serviceable and safe after hanger loss, in-line with current code requirements.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.016

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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