MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133167693 · doi:10.1139/t10-041

Development and evaluation of an automation algorithm for a time-domain reflectometry bridge scour monitoring system

2010· article· en· W2133167693 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiong Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOhio Department of Transportation
KeywordsReflectometryBridge scourAlgorithmBridge (graph theory)Time domainGeotechnical engineeringAutomationEngineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringPier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridge scour is a major threat to the safety of bridges. There is a high risk of scour-induced damage due to the catastrophic nature of bridge foundation failure. The development of an innovative bridge scour monitoring system is a pressing task for the research community. Such a system needs to be fieldworthy, which is a characteristic assessed in terms of accuracy, ruggedness, and automation. Among these criteria, an automatic signal analysis algorithm is generally a prerequisite for deploying a long-term field monitoring program. This paper describes the development and validation of an algorithm for a scour monitoring system based on the principles of guided radar: time-domain reflectometry (TDR). This algorithm is based on the extension of the classic dielectric mixing model to layered systems. The performance of this algorithm is evaluated using experiments designed to simulate different field scour conditions. These include different types of sediments and the variation of river conditions (i.e., salinity of river water, air entrainment, and amount of suspended sediments). The experiment results indicate that the developed analyses algorithm is robust and accurate for scour-depth estimation under these investigated conditions.

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 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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207