Bibliographic record
Abstract
A principle failure mechanism in bridge decks is corrosion of the steel reinforcing, caused by exposure to chlorides. GFRP (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer) rebar is inert to the chemical attack of the chlorides and therefore a perfect substitute for the steel rebar. The result will be a longer lasting, more durable bridge structure. GFRP Rebar continues to gain wider acceptance, due largely to the availability of standardized documents and the excellent performance of research bridges. ACI has developed guidelines for design (ACI 440.1R-06), test methods (ACI 440.3R-04), material specifications and construction specifications. ASTM standardized test methods (ASTM D7205 series) define guaranteed material properties for the designer. In Canada, the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code includes provisions (section 16) for the standardized use of GFRP Rebar. As a result, many bridge structures are being routinely constructed with GFRP rebar in Canada. AASHTO committee T6 is currently working on documents of a similar nature. The use of GFRP rebar offers the benefit of an extended bridge service life using traditional design methodologies, based on consensus standards, verification of material properties, “normal” procurement methods with multiple bidders for the supply of the GFRP bars, and field installation and quality control oversight practices that are very similar to those used today at a first cost to the bridge owner that is something less than 5% of today’s costs. Details of the largest GFRP reinforced bridge structure built to date will be described. The Floodway bridge, near Winnipeg Canada,is a two bridge structure with two lanes each consisting of eight spans of 142 feet each for a total length of bridge deck of 2272 feet.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".