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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This synthesis reports on bridge inspection practices in the United States and selected foreign countries. Specifically, it is a collection of information on formal inspection practices of departments of transportation (DOTs). For U.S. inspection practices, information is presented on inspection personnel (staff titles and functions, qualifications, training and certification, inspection teams, and the assignment of teams to bridges), inspection types (focus, methods, and frequency), and inspection quality control and quality assurance by the DOT inspection programs. Foreign practices are also presented according to inspection personnel, types, and quality programs. Also examined are uses agencies make of information gathered from bridge inspections, what triggers repairs, and plans for future development of inspection programs. Information from Canadian sources can be found in Appendix C. Information for the study was collected through a DOT survey and reviewed bridge inspection manuals. Information was also obtained from 7 European transportation agencies and the South African transportation agency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it