MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Damage Detection Utilizing the Damage Index Method to a Benchmark Structure

2004· article· en· W2037022103 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Luciana R. Barroso, Ramsés Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaTexas A and M University
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Structural health monitoringModalIdentification (biology)Computer scienceStiffnessEigenvalues and eigenvectorsTask (project management)Structural engineeringData miningAlgorithmEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the first generation benchmark problem on structural health monitoring developed by the ASCE Task Group on Structural Health Monitoring. The focus of the problem is a four-story model of an existing physical model at the University of British Columbia where simulated data are used for the system identification. Modal parameters were extracted using the frequency domain decomposition method. Rather than relying on data from the undamaged structure, a new proposed methodology based on ratios between stiffness and mass values from the eigenvalue problem is presented to identify the undamaged state of the structure. Once the structural identification is complete, the damage index method is used to detect the location and severity of damage. By not relying on undamaged structure information, this approach may be applicable to existing structures that may already incorporate some amount of damage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations78
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207