MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392520746 · doi:10.1061/9780784485323.024

Challenges with Pile Design and Construction on the Coquihalla Highway

2024· article· en· W4392520746 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stuart Childs, James Williams, Gurpreet Bala

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPileComputer scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringConstruction engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extreme rainfall events in November 2021 caused significant damage to several bridges on the Coquihalla Highway in British Columbia, Canada. As a result of the devastation, the Juliet Bridge needed to be replaced within a compressed timeframe in order to re-open to its full capacity. Due to the emergency nature of the work, site investigations were carried out immediately, including mud rotary boreholes and instrumented Becker penetrations Tests. Problematic low plastic glacial lacustrine soils were encountered in the foundation soils. The bridge was designed with deep piled foundations that extended into the glacial lacustrine soils. During initial pile driving for the first bridge (northbound), the shaft resistance was determined to be much less than assumed in the design. Piles were re-tested between three days and nine days after the initial drive with minimal increase in shaft resistance. Due to schedule constraints, the piles were driven to a denser glacial till layer at depth. The schedule for the second bridge (southbound) allowed for a 142-day re-strike test to be carried out on one of the piles for the new bridge. This allowed for a significantly longer setup period to be tested. This paper focuses on the key challenges faced in the design and construction of the piles and presents the pile driving data obtained during this project.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207