Experimental Phase II of the Structural Health Monitoring Benchmark Problem
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 paper introduces the second experimental phase of the activities of the IASC-ASCE Structural Health Monitoring Task Group, involving the application of structural health monitoring techniques to data obtained from a four story steel frame structure tested in August 2002 at the University of British Columbia. These Phase II experimental studies follow a series of analytical studies focusing on a model of the same structure. In the experiment, damage was simulated by removing bracing or loosening bolts within the structure. Three types of excitation were considered: electrodynamic shaker, impact hammer, and ambient vibration. In the shaker tests an electrodynamic shaker on the top floor of the frame was used to excite the structure. Accelerometers were placed throughout the structure to provide measurements of the structural responses. The data and a complete description of the experimental setup are also available at http://wusceel.cive.wustl.edu/asce.shm/ for potential participants to download and examine. Subsequent papers in this session will consider solution procedures for this problem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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