MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W621673638

Power of the Pedestrian Bridge

2007· article· en· W621673638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David McMullen

Bibliographic record

VenueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianPopularityArchitectural engineeringBridge (graph theory)EngineeringPower (physics)Computer scienceCivil engineeringTransport engineeringPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the design of aesthetically interesting pedestrian bridges has long been common practice in Europe, it is beginning to gain popularity in the United States as well. This article describes some innovative footbridges that are both practical and beautiful. Interesting design, lighting and decorative materials are used to make these bridges unique. These footbridges may be more expensive than traditional pre-manufactured designs, but they add a great deal in terms of social benefits such as defining a community and attracting tourists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public PolicySame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207