MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981777169

Field monitoring of MTQ 202ME concrete bridge barriers reinforced with GFRP and steel bars

2011· article· en· W6981777169 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStrain gaugeFibre-reinforced plasticBridge (graph theory)CrackingVibrating wireChristian ministryShrinkage
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through a collaboration project between the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ) and the University of Sherbrooke, the field monitoring of GFRP- and steel-reinforced concrete barriers is being conducted. The barriers are constructed on a 6-lane bridge using high-performance concrete with a compressive strength of 50 MPa after 28 days. The barrier under consideration was median barrier type MTQ 202ME constructed on the 410-overpass bridge on the Highway 410 separating the 6-lane bridge into three lanes in each direction. The field monitoring included two sections of 23 m-long and 24 m-long. The first section (24 m-long) was reinforced with GFRP bars and the second one (23 m-long) was reinforced with galvanized steel bars. The main objective was to monitor the crack initiation and propagation as well as the strain evolution in both GFRP- and steel-reinforced sections. Besides, the effect of early age shrinkage and cracking of the high-performance concrete was captured thought the monitoring reading. The GFRP bars were instrumented with fiber-optic sensors (FOS) at different locations along the barrier length while the steel bars were instrumented with vibrating wire strain gauges (VWSG). Thermometers (TH-T) were also used for temperature measurements. In addition to the FOS and the vibrating wire strain gauges, electrical resistance strain gauges (ESG) were also used for additional measurements. The vibrating wire sensors and thermometers were connected to two multiplexers and a Datalogger type CR10X to capture their readings while the FOS sensors were connected to a 16-channel DMI unit to capture and store their readings. The readings of the ESG, however, were captured using the P-3500 readout unit. The results and the general discussion of the measured readings as well as some concluding remarks are presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207