Structural Health Monitoring Using Wireless Sensor Networks: A Comprehensive Survey
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: Observational
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.234
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
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.
The record
- Venue
- IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
- Topic
- Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
- Field
- Engineering
- Canadian institutions
- Memorial University of Newfoundland
- Funders
- Qatar National Research Fund
- Keywords
- Structural health monitoringWireless sensor networkScalabilityComputer scienceSynchronization (alternating current)Data collectionKey distribution in wireless sensor networksTime synchronizationWirelessComputer networkDistributed computingSystems engineeringWireless networkEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectrical engineeringChannel (broadcasting)Database
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes