MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W338535183

Looking at logistics: transport techniques

2007· article· en· W338535183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueTunnels & tunnelling · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckMuckTransport engineeringEngineeringWork (physics)DirtShovelTraffic congestionDemolitionCivil engineeringEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents key aspects of the logistics and equipment choices that will most efficiently remove muck and provide other sorts of support to tunneling projects, especially as more and more projects are undertaken in crowded, urban settings or locales with fragile natural environments. Several prominent tunnels require diametrically opposite treatments. For example, the Second Avenue Subway in New York City requires trucks to operate only during waking hours to avoid disturbing residents as the trucks haul away muck and materials for the project. By contrast, in Hong Kong, trucks were banned from city streets during daylight hours to reduce congestion and conflicts with regular traffic. Depending on the locale and the project specifications, muck and materials can be supplied by rail, truck or conveyor belt. Some combine two or even all three. Specialist equipment makers fabricate machines to meet production requirements and the physical constraints of the setting. Such customized equipment includes a custom-built train that will be used for maintenance and other work when the tunnel is completed. Heavy-duty slurry treatment plants must have enough capacity to avoid forcing the tunneling equipment to slow down. Showcase projects include London’s Crossrail scheme, Vancouver’s new Canada Line, and Kowloon Southern Link, in Hong Kong.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTunnels & tunnellingSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207