Probabilistic bridge weigh-in-motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional bridge weigh-in-motion (BWIM) uses a bridge influence line to find the axle weights of passing vehicles that minimize the sum of squares of differences between theoretical and measured responses. An alternative approach, probabilistic bridge weigh-in-motion (pBWIM), is proposed here. The pBWIM approach uses a probabilistic influence line and seeks to find the most probable axle weights, given the measurements. The inferred axle weights are those with the greatest probability amongst all possible combinations of values. The measurement sensors used in pBWIM are similar to BWIM, containing free-of-axle detector sensors to calculate axle spacings and vehicle speed and weighing sensors to record deformations of the bridge. The pBWIM concept is tested here using a numerical model and a bridge in Slovenia. In a simulation, 200 randomly generated 2-axle trucks pass over a 6 m long simply supported beam. The bending moment at mid-span is used to find the axle weights. In the field tests, 77 pre-weighed trucks traveled over an integral slab bridge and the strain response in the soffit at mid-span was recorded. Results show that pBWIM has good potential to improve the accuracy of BWIM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".