MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W756562157

Replacing a Gem

2007· article· en· W756562157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher D. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)ScheduleEngineeringDemolitionCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringPlan (archaeology)Forensic engineeringTransport engineeringArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceArchaeologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its 1913 construction, the Lime Kiln Bridge in Vermont has been considered an architectural and scenic gem. However, by 1996, it was clear that the narrow and deteriorated bridge needed to be replaced. This article describes the permitting, design and construction challenges of replacing the bridge with something that matched the architectural beauty of the original bridge. The project had to obtain numerous state and federal permits, often with conflicting requirements. The Vermont Transportation Agency (VTrans) also spent a year negotiating with the state's Department of Historical Preservation regarding whether the old span could be rehabilitated. As a compromise, VTrans agreed not to remove the old span until it had been fully documented by architectural historians. The bridge presented several logistical challenges due to the bridge's location between two rock quarries and the need to complete construction on a tight schedule while maintaining constant vehicular, railroad and pedestrian access. Prestressed concrete slabs were used to create a bridge design that simulated the original bridge's decorative geometrical features while adding modern ornamental and safety features. The bridge's surface was outfitted with deicing membranes to prevent the deterioration that had damaged the original bridge. The new bridge has already received several awards and honors in the engineering industry.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public PolicySame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207