MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202192001 · doi:10.22260/isarc2013/0174

Updating Bayesian Network for Diagnostic Failure Analysis of Construction Equipment

2013· article· en· W202192001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongqin Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian networkComputer scienceDownloadBayesian probabilityVariety (cybernetics)Conditional probabilityReliability engineeringMachine learningData miningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Updating Bayesian Network for Diagnostic Failure Analysis of Construction Equipment H. Q. Fan Pages 1550-1559 (2013 Proceedings of the 30th ISARC, Montréal, Canada, ISBN 978-1-62993-294-1, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Construction equipment is an important type of resources of heavy construction contractors. Since equipment breakdowns can cause project delays and significant financial losses, the contractors are eager to know those factors causing equipment failures directly or indirectly, related to equipment design, maintenance, and operations. Although Bayesian network can be used for diagnostic analysis of failure events or making predictive analysis, building a Bayesian network for such purpose can be difficult as the cause-effect relations can be subjective and their conditional probabilities change with a wide variety of causal factors. A hybrid approach is proposed in this paper to update the Bayesian diagnostic network structures and parameters using real life data, the conditional probabilities and cause-effect relationships can be dynamically updated with observed failure records to reflect the real life situations of a complex equipment system. A case study is conducted to show the benefits of the hybrid approach in construction equipment diagnostic analysis. Keywords: Construction equipment maintenance; Bayesian network learning; Failure analysis; Decision support DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2013/0174 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... ISARCSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207