MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328051319 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2021-0370

Review of the causes of the unprecedented collapse of the United Grain Growers elevator in Thunder Bay, Ontario

2023· article· en· W4328051319 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ralph B. Peck, M.A.J. Matich, V. Milligan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThunderRevetmentElevatorSeawallPileDebrisGeotechnical engineeringBayEngineeringForensic engineeringGeologyMining engineeringCivil engineeringStructural engineeringOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a case history of the unprecedented collapse of a pile-supported grain elevator which collapsed suddenly into the harbour in Thunder Bay, Ontario on September 23rd.,1959 after a service life without incident for over 30 years. Many similar grain elevators had been built and operated successfully in the area beginning in the 1880’s. Studies directed at establishing the possible cause(s) included: geotechnical investigations, interrogation of background on design, construction, operation and performance, and a forensic evaluation of evidence revealed during removal of the debris in preparation for reconstruction. The site soil conditions together with features of the collapse are described. The elevator had experienced only minor lateral movements which was in marked contrast to other pile-supported elevators in similar ground conditions nearby. This evidence was considered of particular significance. The collapse is attributed to several factors: the failure of the batter piles, followed by that of vertical piles; to the repairs of the revetment and the associated filling of voids, probably aggravated by a ship collision 6 days before the collapse.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicConstruction Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207