MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W638334829

BRIDGE DECK FASTENER EVALUATION AT FAST

2005· article· en· W638334829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Duane Otter, Brian Doe

Bibliographic record

VenueRailway track and structures · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFastenerEngineeringWasherTraverseDeckNutAxleStructural engineeringLock (firearm)Bridge (graph theory)Thread (computing)Forensic engineeringCivil engineeringMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent transportation technology report outlines a study that has evaluated five different types of bridge deck fasteners used in the United States and Canada. This article describes that study which involves the mechanical description of each of the five systems, their heavy-axle-load (HAL) capacity in millions of gross tons (mgt), and what types of problems may be found in each sort. The most effective system with regard to HAL capacity and amount of maintenance (i.e. no maintenance and 460 mgt capacity) involved two nuts and a thread locking material. The least effective system in these terms uses a lock nut and a spring lock washer, which only withstood 30 mgt of HAL before requiring maintenance.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRailway track and structuresSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207