Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete girder bridges using Bayesian belief network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Infrastructure owners and operators, or governmental agencies, need rapid screening tools to prioritize detailed risk assessment and retrofit resources allocation. This paper provides one such tool, for use by highway administrations, based on Bayesian belief network (BBN) and aimed at replacing so‐called generic or typological seismic fragility functions for reinforced concrete girder bridges. Resources for detailed assessments should be allocated to bridges with highest consequence of damage, for which site hazard, bridge fragility, and traffic data are needed. The proposed BBN based model is used to quantify seismic fragility of bridges based on data that can be obtained by visual inspection and engineering drawings. Results show that the predicted fragilities are of sufficient accuracy for establishing relative ranking and prioritizing. While the actual data and seismic hazard employed to train the network (establishing conditional probability tables) refer to the Italian bridge stock, the network structure and engineering judgment can easily be adopted for bridges in different geographical locations. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it