MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134316278 · doi:10.2749/newyork.2019.2638

Objective-based equivalent static wind loads for long-span bridges

2019· article· en· W3134316278 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary J. Taylor, Pierre-Olivier Dallaire, Stoyan Stoyanoff

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsRowan Williams Davies & Irwin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticityStructural engineeringTime domainModalDeflection (physics)Wind engineeringSpan (engineering)Frequency domainModal analysisDesign processComputer scienceEngineeringAerodynamicsFinite element methodAerospace engineeringPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process to arrive at design wind loads for long-span bridges involves experimental testing and analytical methods. Time domain simulations are becoming increasingly common and many available studies demonstrate results of buffeting response analysis in the time domain. However, there is significantly more to the process than the response analysis to derive wind loads that can be applied practically for design. The current study focuses on two key aspects required to derive design wind loads: prediction of the peak modal deflection and derivation of modal combination coefficients using objective functions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207