MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406823769 · doi:10.2749/sanjose.2024.0209

Review of the Asset Management, Inspection and Rehabilitation Work Required to Maintain Two Suspension Bridges, Angus L. Macdonald and A. Murray MacKay, in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada)

2024· article· en· W4406823769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron Ferguson, Jorge Pérez Armiño, Dillon Betts, Ahsan Raja Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaNova (rocket)Suspension (topology)Work (physics)Asset (computer security)Asset managementEngineeringOperations researchBusinessHistoryComputer scienceAeronauticsArchaeologyMechanical engineeringFinanceComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Angus L. Macdonald Bridge, opened in 1955, and the A. Murray Mackay Bridge, opened in 1970, are two suspension bridges that connect the cities of Dartmouth and Halifax in Nova Scotia, Canada. The Macdonald Bridge is 1347 m long (441 m main span) while the MacKay Bridge is 1236 m (426 m main span). The bridges are owned, operated and maintained by the Halifax Dartmouth Bridge Commission, doing business as the Halifax Harbour Bridges (HHB), whose main mandate is to provide safe, efficient, and reliable transportation infrastructure over the Halifax Harbour. A continuous effort has been made over the last 20 years to protect and extend the service life of these two critical bridges which need to withstand the harsh environmental conditions of Halifax. This paper showcases the advantages of collaborative effort between the Owner and Consultant, and the need for rigorous infrastructure maintenance and investment programs for suspension bridges.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueReportSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207