MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162026245 · doi:10.82308/50120

ArcGIS inventory analysis for risk assessment of road tunnels

2023· dissertation· en· W7162026245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Law

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk assessmentHazardVulnerability (computing)Vulnerability assessmentNatural hazardSampling (signal processing)Geographic information systemHazard analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid urbanization and the increasing interest in sustainable land use have urged decision makersto consider replacing aboveground urban freeways with underground road tunnels. However,tunnelling major urban auto infrastructure would increase its vulnerability to natural hazards suchas fire, earthquake, and flood. Despite the significant consequences, the risks of these hazards onroad tunnels have not been thoroughly investigated. This study develops a digital inventory of aroad tunnel network proposed for Montreal using ArcGIS and conducts a case study to assess thetunnel risk under confined fire events. The highways between Anjou and Decarie feature hightraffic volumes and are considered to be buried underground and replaced with alternative roadtunnels. The ArcGIS data inventory is developed by positioning the tunnels along existing highwayroutes, and assembling and pre-processing a database for surrounding soil and rock profiles. Therelative risk scores of different tunnel segments under fire exposures due to possible vehiclecombustions and collisions are assigned based on their distances to the nearest (1) egress pointsfor human evacuation and (2) fire stations for fire suppression. As such, a relative fire risk map isdeveloped in ArcGIS for sampling locations at 100 m of spacing along the tunnel line.Subsequently, a new fire station is proposed to be placed near the high-risk site, showing itscapability to diminish the peak risk score from 100 to 60. The developed digital tunnel-soil/rockinventory and the fire-risk case study provide a viable pathway for end users to assess the spatialdistribution of hazard risk, pinpoint high-risk sites, and interactively quantify the effectiveness ofdifferent risk mitigation strategies

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207