MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735386802 · doi:10.3141/2612-15

Cloud-Based Scalable Software for Optimal Long-Range, Network-Level Bridge Improvement Programming

2017· article· en· W2735386802 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mahmoud R. Halfawy

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaFederal Highway AdministrationIowa Department of Transportation
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Time horizonComputer scienceMinificationMaximizationScalabilityHeuristicBridge maintenanceOperations researchRisk analysis (engineering)Agency (philosophy)EngineeringMathematical optimizationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current state of the practice in bridge management highlights a growing need to develop scalable optimization software tools to support the development of truly optimal bridge improvement programs and ensure that limited financial resources are optimally allocated. The heuristic project selection approaches employed in today’s bridge management systems are not capable of generating optimal programs. Agencies that rely on suboptimal programs may inadvertently direct a significant portion of their budget to the wrong projects, leading to an increase in maintenance backlogs and overall system risk levels. The subjective project selection criteria may also hinder the ability to quantify project benefits or justify projects to funding agencies and stakeholders. This paper presents a novel dynamic programming–based multiobjective optimization approach that is capable of generating global optimal network-level, long-range bridge improvement programs. The algorithm considers three objectives: the minimization of system-level risk, the maximization of system-level condition, and the minimization of life-cycle costs, subject to agency-defined constraints and planning scenarios. The algorithm efficiently explores the enormous search space to find optimal project lists for each year in the planning horizon under any given scenario. Alternative planning scenarios are defined to quantify the impact of different investment levels on system-level performance metrics and to determine the investment required to achieve the desired performance and risk targets.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.279 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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