MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367294183 · doi:10.14311/app.2022.38.0630

Rescue of a stone bridge with respect to current condition and standards

2022· article· en· W4367294183 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Polytechnica CTU Proceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Structural Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryDemolitionBridge (graph theory)ArchCarbon footprintCivil engineeringPrincipal (computer security)Architectural engineeringEngineeringSpan (engineering)Arch bridgeForensic engineeringGreenhouse gasComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three span stone masonry bridge dating back to the middle of the 19th century, still in the roadway network, is assessed to prevent its demolition. Its industrial heritage value and ecological concerns were the principal reasons for the assessment. The carbon footprint of the stone arch replacement would be approximately 200 t CO2 emission owing to 430 m3 reinforced concrete in the new structure. Besides the cultural monument, considerable energy, CO2 emissions and natural resources can be saved in accordance with the sustainable development goals. Standards, guides and commercial software do not provide an adequate support for the assessment of masonry arch bridges, therefore an innovative two phase application of a commercial linear sttructural analysis code and an original in-house code was developed for the purpose. Thousands of stone ach bridges still in service worlwide give the case study more general importance.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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