MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380631559 · doi:10.5006/4167

Durability in Design of Light Rail Reinforced Concrete Structures

2023· article· en· W4380631559 on OpenAlexaff
Will Nash

Bibliographic record

VenueCORROSION · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilityCorrosionStray voltageWeldingEngineeringLight railForensic engineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringTransport engineeringComposite materialPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, a number of light rail systems have been built or extended in North America. Typical design lives of metallic and concrete transit structures are required to exceed 75 y, with exposure to de-icing salts, freeze/thaw, and the potential for stray currents. Measures to mitigate the risks of reinforcement corrosion to rail structures have progressed over the last century, with some diversion between the preferred practices in Europe and North America. One significant difference with large cost impacts on projects is the means and methods to achieve continuity of the reinforcing steel within rail structures to control stray currents to negligible levels. Herein we review the available standards and literature as it relates to the risks of stray current corrosion of reinforcing steel, specifically with respect to the requirement for welding reinforcing. Field measurements of steel resistivity taken during the construction of rail structures are presented to clarify the as-built condition. Taking into account the effect of stray currents on the chloride threshold for corrosion initiation, methods are recommended to achieve durability requirements for the least lifecycle cost to asset owners.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCORROSIONSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207