MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Damage Detection Utilizing the Damage Index Method to a Benchmark Structure

2004· article· en· W2037022103 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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