MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic Algorithm for Inspection and Maintenance Planning of Deteriorating Structural Systems: Application to Pressure Vessels

2018· article· en· W2888953623 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenetic algorithmPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)MaximizationAlgorithmDecision support systemMathematical optimizationReliability engineeringData miningEngineeringMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For engineering systems, decision analysis can be used to determine the optimal decision from a set of options via utility maximization. Applied to inspection and maintenance planning, decision analysis can determine the best inspection and maintenance plan to follow. Decision analysis is relatively straightforward for simple systems. However, for more complex systems with many components or defects, the set of all possible inspection and maintenance plans can be very large. This paper presents the use of a genetic algorithm to perform inspection and maintenance plan optimization for complex systems. The performance of the genetic algorithm is compared to optimization by exhaustive search. A numerical example of life cycle maintenance planning for a corroding pressure vessel is used to illustrate the method. Genetic algorithms are found to be an effective approach to reduce the computational demand of solving complex inspection and maintenance optimizations.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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