MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W642001357

A Tale of Two Bridges

2005· article· en· W642001357 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tyson Herman

Bibliographic record

VenueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeam (structure)Structural health monitoringStructural engineeringFlexural strengthForensic engineeringEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defiance, Ohio recently completed a project involving the structural rehabilitation of two bridges. To optimize the strength of the repaired structures, an innovative solution was developed involving post-tensioning externally bonded carbon fiber laminates. This article describes this pioneering project. One of the objectives of the repair was to restore the flexural capacity of the beams by reintroducing the compressive force lost to deterioration of prestressing strands. The key to this project was the installation of the post-tensioned carbon fiber plates. To begin the project, the beams were jacked up to replace deteriorated bearing pads. The next step was to repair the deteriorated concrete on the prestressed box beam. Existing asphalt pavement then was removed and the beams were post-tensioned using fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. To complete the project, the asphalt was returned with new drainage to keep stormwater from running over the repaired beams. A structural health monitoring system was installed to provide information on the longevity of these bridges and to determine if these techniques are appropriate for other bridges.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.008

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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public PolicySame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207