MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391470081 · doi:10.21079/11681/48158

Extreme cold weather airfield damage repair testing at Goose Bay Air Base, Canada

2024· report· en· W4391470081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Carruth, Terry Melendy, George L. Blaisdell, Benjamin Watts, Danielle Kennedy, Jeb S. Tingle, Alessandra Bianchini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayGooseCold weatherExtreme ColdMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringClimatologyGeographyGeologyEcologyCivil engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid Airfield Damage Recovery (RADR) technologies have proven successful in temperate and subfreezing temperatures but have not been evaluated in extreme cold weather temperatures near 0°F. To address this capability gap, laboratory-scale and full-scale testing was conducted at these temperatures. Methods developed for moderate climates were adapted and demonstrated alongside methods that used snow harvested on-site as compacted backfill. After only a few days of training, seven experimental repairs were conducted by Canadian airmen at Goose Bay Air Base in Labrador, Canada, and load tested with a single-wheel C-17 load cart. Existing RADR technologies performed adequately despite the freezing temperatures, with the main tactic, techniques, and procedures modification being an increased cure time for the rapid-setting concrete surface material. Compacted snow-water slurry methods also performed well, demonstrating their ability to withstand over 500 passes of single-wheel C-17 traffic after sufficient freezing time.

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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207