MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235641681 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647263.v1

Strengthening full-scale damaged prestressed concrete bridge girders with CFRP sheets

2021· preprint· en· W4235641681 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Cerullo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirderFibre-reinforced plasticStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)EngineeringFull scaleReliability (semiconductor)Finite element methodForensic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large percentage of bridges in Canada were constructed over thirty years ago and their condition steadily declining. A product of deterioration and corrosive environments, many structures have been rendered unfit as per design codes and [are] structurally unsound. Constructing new structures and conventional repair methods are financially costly. A solution lies in fibre reinforced polymers (FRP). This thesis summarizes experimental projects regarding FRP usage in field applications. An actual damaged bridge girder was removed and rehabilitated with the FRP system. It was loaded incrementally and statically, nearing failure, investigating the reliability of the rehabilitation technique proposed to revive strength capacity to an acceptable level. A finite element computer simulation was created, modeling the load-history of the rehabilitated girder, as well as three full-scale damaged duble-tee girders, recently rehabilitated and loaded to collapse. This full-scale testing program and computer replication shall provide engineers with confidence in using FRP technology in girder strengthening.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207