Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This synthesis will be of interest to all individuals involved in steel bridge fabrication, assembly, and erection. It examines, discusses, and analyzes steel bridge erection practices for I-girder, tub-girder, and box-girder bridges; particularly curved, skewed, and staged structures. Key topics considered include the impact of design and analysis practices on erection; methods used to predict erection deflections as a function of bridge type and complexity; shop-assembly practices and alternate methods of ensuring properly assembled geometry; stability issues; field connection practices; examples of structures in which erection practices have caused problems; owner requirements for erection procedures, implementation of requirements, and the impact of procedures on the quality of erection; and current and proposed research. This synthesis reports on the responses to three questionnaires sent to all U.S. state departments of transportation (DOTs) and Canadian provinces, 24 steel bridge fabricators, and 25 steel bridge erectors and contractors. Responses were received from 30 state DOTs, 2 provinces, 15 fabricators, and 4 erectors. Follow-up information was gathered by telephone interviews.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 it