MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W578787043 · doi:10.17226/13941

Use of Geophysics for Transportation Projects

2006· book· en· W578787043 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

VenueTransportation Research Board eBooks · 2006
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeophysicsGeologyEngineeringComputer scienceEarth science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This synthesis presents the state of the practice regarding the use of geophysics for transportation projects. The report focuses on U.S. state and Canadian provincial departments of transportation (DOTs), and U.S. federal transportation agencies. The main points addressed include who is using geophysics and why, which methods and applications are the most commonly used, the use of in-house expertise compared with contracting private consultants, and how geophysical service contracts are procured and implemented. The scope was limited to how geophysics is being applied by geotechnical engineers during highway planning and construction activities. The information included in this synthesis was obtained from a review of the published literature; a survey of all 50 state DOTs, the District of Columbia, Canadian provinces, and selected federal government agencies; and follow-up telephone interviews designed to clarify or expand on particular aspects of some survey responses.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.208 · 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