Microsis: The Method and Equipment for Non‐Destructive Testing of Foundations and Concrete Constructions Based on Modal Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PreviousNext No AccessSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2002Microsis: The Method and Equipment for Non‐Destructive Testing of Foundations and Concrete Constructions Based on Modal AnalysisAuthors: France GoupilBoris KonioukhovJean‐Luc ArsenaultRéjean PaulYannick MachabéeFrance GoupilGeophysics GPR International Inc., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, Boris KonioukhovGeophysics GPR International Inc., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, Jean‐Luc ArsenaultGeophysics GPR International Inc., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, Réjean PaulGeophysics GPR International Inc., Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, and Yannick MachabéeGeophysics GPR International Inc., Longueuil, Quebec, Canadahttps://doi.org/10.4133/1.2927141 SectionsAboutPDF/ePub ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Abstract Introductory paragraph for this paper is available only in the PDF and GZipped PS filesPermalink: https://doi.org/10.4133/1.2927141FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2002ISSN (online):1554-8015Copyright: 2002 Pages: publication data© 2002 Copyright © 2002 The Environmental and Engineering Geophysical SocietyPublisher:Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society HistoryPublished: 30 Sep 2008 CITATION INFORMATION France Goupil, Boris Konioukhov, Jean‐Luc Arsenault, Réjean Paul, and Yannick Machabée, (2002), "Microsis: The Method and Equipment for Non‐Destructive Testing of Foundations and Concrete Constructions Based on Modal Analysis," Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems Proceedings : IDA9-IDA9. https://doi.org/10.4133/1.2927141 Plain-Language Summary PDF DownloadLoading ...
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it