Disraeli Bridges Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The City of Winnipeg identified that there was a need for a major rehabilitation or replacement of the existing Disraeli Bridges (Red River Bridge and the CPR Overpass). The City conducted a value for money study over the proposed design life and determined that it was in their best interest to procure the work in the form of a Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) agreement. The Plenary Roads Winnipeg (PRW) Team, comprised of Plenary, PCL, and Tetra Tech, was the preferred DBFM team. The design was developed in a collaborative manner with the construction and maintenance teams to ensure that the design met the intent of the bid and long-term performance objectives. Life cycle decisions were very important during the design development. Value engineering was conducted at all stages of the project development. This provided the City with the best plan for the project with the least impact to the public in terms of traffic and cost, and to the environment. The PRW team developed a construction plan that allowed for completion of the replacement of all the roadwork and bridge structures without any shut downs during business days, maintaining operational traffic. Geotechnical and environmental challenges included dealing with contaminated south riverbank soils and slope stability of the north riverbank. Construction of the new bridges began in spring of 2010. The Red River Bridge and CPR Overpass were officially opened on October 19, 2012. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201310RT334E.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".