MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W54497526

Concrete half joint bridges in New South Wales: challenges in risk management

2011· article· en· W54497526 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustroads Bridge Conference, 8th, 2011, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Joint (building)EngineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringTransport engineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Half joints were introduced into bridges to simplify design, construction and allow for bridge movements. The sudden collapse of a concrete half joint overpass bridge in Montreal, Canada, after about forty years in service, prompted concern within the bridge community regarding the inherent risks involved in this type of bridges. This paper gives an outline of Road and Traffic Authority's (RTA) different type of half joint bridge stocks and examines in detail the challenges faced by RTA in maintaining these bridge stocks for ever increasing road traffic. It also discusses the maintenance strategy currently under development at RTA to sustain these bridges for future generation. Recently a detailed analytical study was carried out at RTA for a half joint concrete bridge in Cooma, New South Wales. This paper highlights how Finite Element based techniques can be utilised to arrive realistic wheel load transfer into individual half joints and compares these results against the traditional code based Distribution Factor methods. It also addresses how concrete stress field based strut and tie modelling can be used to assess the resistance capacities of these half joints at the Ultimate Limit State.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.114 · 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