MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092045282 · doi:10.1139/l06-141

Developing a structural-health-monitoring model to monitor cracking in steel-free concrete deck slabs

2007· article· en· W2092045282 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Chaochao Yang, John Newhook

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCrackingDeckStructural health monitoringStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)SlabGirderStructural loadLoad distributionEngineeringCivil engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ISIS Canada Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program has focused on two main themes to improve civil engineering infrastructure, namely innovative construction technologies, and structural health monitoring (SHM). The former began with the construction of the first field application of the innovative steel-free concrete bridge deck slab technology at the Salmon River bridge, Nova Scotia, in 1995. Although this bridge has continued to function safely under heavy traffic loads, it has developed characteristic longitudinal cracking of the concrete between adjacent girders due to fatigue. This paper describes the recent research to develop an SHM model for monitoring the impact and stability of this cracking. Theoretical and experimental models were used to examine the change in response as cracking develops. A global load distribution matrix was proposed, and the variation in load distribution values with cracking was used to develop a cracking index that can be employed in monitoring the field structure.Key words: structural health monitoring, bridges, concrete, deck slabs, cracking, load distribution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.281
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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207