MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604321178 · doi:10.1109/comst.2017.2691551

Structural Health Monitoring Using Wireless Sensor Networks: A Comprehensive Survey

2017· article· en· W2604321178 on OpenAlexaff
Adam B. Noel, Abderrazak Abdaoui, Tarek Elfouly, Mohamed H. Ahmed, Ahmed Badawy, Mohamed Shehata

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersQatar National Research Fund
KeywordsStructural health monitoringWireless sensor networkScalabilityComputer scienceSynchronization (alternating current)Data collectionKey distribution in wireless sensor networksTime synchronizationWirelessComputer networkDistributed computingSystems engineeringWireless networkEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringChannel (broadcasting)Database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural health monitoring (SHM) using wireless sensor networks (WSNs) has gained research interest due to its ability to reduce the costs associated with the installation and maintenance of SHM systems. SHM systems have been used to monitor critical infrastructure such as bridges, high-rise buildings, and stadiums and has the potential to improve structure lifespan and improve public safety. The high data collection rate of WSNs for SHM pose unique network design challenges. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of SHM using WSNs outlining the algorithms used in damage detection and localization, outlining network design challenges, and future research directions. Solutions to network design problems such as scalability, time synchronization, sensor placement, and data processing are compared and discussed. This survey also provides an overview of testbeds and real-world deployments of WSNs for SH.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations473
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Communications Surveys & TutorialsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207