MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W752993762

Bridge Design Training Program Using the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code

2013· article· en· W752993762 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eky Li

Bibliographic record

Venue2013 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION: BETTER - FASTER - SAFER · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)EngineeringPrivate sectorChristian ministryWork (physics)Design–buildEngineering managementTransport engineeringCivil engineeringMechanical engineeringPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the traditional clients in the public sector, including transportation and power authorities, have gradually shifted away from production areas to concentrate on direct project delivery. This has led to a large vacuum in the research and development areas, leaving engineers in the private sector to fill this role. At the same time, the ability of engineers in the private sector to design and innovate was also severely limited. The group of engineers most affected are bridge engineers. Major clients such as the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), has outsourced their bridge design almost entirely since the mid 1990's. Because of the lack of knowledge and experience in designing bridges within MTO, its engineers have limited ability in in-house designs and evaluations, as well as in consultant management. In early 2012, MTO embarked on a new initiative to create and implement a Training Program for Bridge Engineering based on the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The program is to address this knowledge gap, allow MTO to undertake in-house design activities, maintain MTO as a knowledgeable owner, and enhance its ability to oversee Bridge Design Consultants. Morrison Hershfield Limited and the University of Western Ontario rose up to this challenge. The resulting program combined expertise in practical bridge design with academic teaching skill in adult education. The program was successfully delivered, with the work monitored by a Steering Committee comprised of MTO Senior Members. This project was nominated for the 2013 Educational Achievement Award. 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 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 score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2013 CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF CANADA - TRANSPORTATION: BETTER - FASTER - SAFERSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207