MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179965411

Structural Health Monitoring

2005· article· en· W2179965411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cory Sekine-Pettite

Bibliographic record

VenueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural health monitoringAerospaceEngineeringConstruction engineeringSystems engineeringCivil engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Structural engineeringBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) or structural health monitoring (SHM) uses a series of new and existing technologies that are designed to monitor various internal and external conditions of civil engineering infrastructure, such as bridges. This article discusses the technological aspects of SHM, describes some companies involved in providing SHM services, and reviews research efforts focused on monitoring and improving the structural health of the nation's bridges. Some of the technologies involved in SHM are fiber optics, wireless communications, ground-penetrating radar imaging, and information technology. Using technology, owners and engineers are able to predict more accurately the longevity of existing structures as well as design more durable, smarter structures. SHM systems can be engineered to monitor humidity, temperature, chloride ingress, corrosion potential, vibration and strains. There are also systems for monitoring structural steel on bridges, as well as the cable systems for suspension bridges. Since 1998, the Federal Highway Administration's NDE Validation Center has provided state highway agencies with independent evaluation and validation of NDE technologies, offered technical assistance and developed new NDE technologies.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBridges Conversations in Global Politics and Public PolicySame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207