MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585247999 · doi:10.3141/2609-02

Probabilistic Modeling of Single and Concurrent Truckloads on Bridges

2017· article· en· W2585247999 on OpenAlexaff
Donald C. Watson, Matthew T Crim, Kurtis R. Gurley, Scott S. Washburn

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckBridge (graph theory)Weigh in motionProbabilistic logicEngineeringTransport engineeringStatistical modelComputer scienceAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maintenance of bridges and the evolution of an appropriate bridge rating system require the consideration of loads from heavy trucks. These loads can arise from a single overweight truck or multiple trucks simultaneously present, or concurrent, on a bridge. This paper presents a probabilistic modeling approach to assess the frequency and likelihood of observing various bridge loads caused by single and concurrent trucks. The approach used weigh-in-motion (WIM) data collected at or near bridges of interest to identify single and concurrent trucks and their Corresponding loads. The modeling approach was applied to bridges near three WIM stations in Florida. Results showed that in any given month, there was a 100% probability of observing at least one single or concurrent truckload that exceeded twice the minimum weight of a single overweight truck (i.e., exceeded 711,715 N or 160,000 lb). In addition, the probability of observing extreme truckloads was significantly higher when all trucks were considered, as opposed to only overweight trucks. The modeling approach can easily be adapted to the goals of the study and to any region where WIM data are available at or near the bridge(s) of interest. Results generated from the modeling approach provide probabilistic loading input for bridge maintenance planning and truck permitting policy.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.358
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207