MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414099430 · doi:10.3390/buildings15183262

Visual and Non-Destructive Testing of ASR Affected Piers from Montreal’s Champlain Bridge

2025· article· en· W4414099430 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leah Kristufek, Leandro Sanchez, Beatriz Martín‐Pérez, Martin Noël

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPierCrackingVisual inspectionRelative humidityReinforced concreteBridge (graph theory)Nondestructive testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condition assessment of reinforced concrete structures presents a significant challenge worldwide as structures built in the post-war construction period (1950s–1970s) reach end of service life. The alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is one of several damage mechanisms which commonly affect infrastructure in Canada. Frequent freeze-thaw cycles and heavy use of de-icing salts in winter as well as high heat and humidity in summer are expected to have intensified ASR-induced damage. This work investigates five segments of a pier cap—PC, which had undergone encapsulation repair, and four segments of a pier shaft—PS, which represented dry and semi-submerged conditions, removed from a highway bridge constructed starting in 1957. Preliminary evaluation through visual inspection (conventional, qualitative and quantitative using the cracking index—CI) and non-destructive techniques (rebound hammer—RBH, ultrasonic pulse velocity—UPV and surface resistivity) was conducted on both internal (i.e., cut during decommissioning) and external (i.e., exposed while in service) surfaces of five PC segments and four PS segments. Differences in geometry, exposure conditions and repair history from the two members were found to have limited impact on the results of quantitative tests (i.e., CI, RBH and UPV results with average values of 1.6 mm/m, 37 MPa and 2.4 Km/s, respectively) while still exhibiting qualitative differences in visual determination (i.e., crack patterns, surface appearance and crack widths).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207