MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912946025 · doi:10.1080/15732479.2018.1562479

Condition evaluation of suspension bridges for maintenance, repair and rehabilitation: a comprehensive framework

2019· article· en· W2912946025 on OpenAlexaff
Xiang Xu, Qiao Huang, Yuan Ren, Danyang Zhao, Deyi Zhang, Hongbin Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueStructure and Infrastructure Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsOntario Power GenerationUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)Analytic hierarchy processReliability engineeringBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceEngineeringOperations researchMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To indicate health status of bridges and help stakeholders make decision on maintenance, a comprehensive framework has been proposed to evaluate structural efficiency of suspension bridges using analytic hierarchy process. First, the analytical hierarchy model (i.e. hierarchical network together with data aggregation algorithms) has been constructed using multi-source data, including visual inspection, non-destructive testing and structural health monitoring information. Age-dependent variable weight theory is developed to account for the service history of elements ensuring the alignment of variation trend of index weights with the objective law in bridge maintenance and management activities. To overcome the limitations of factor-based variable weight model for weight adjustment, the factor- and age-based variable weight model has been adopted for data aggregation. Finally, four cases are used to test the effectiveness of the three models (i.e. constant weight model, factor-based variable weight model and factor- and age-based variable weight model). By comparing the performance of the three models, the recommended maintenance strategy derived from factor- and age-based variable weight model aligns more with the actual strategy than the other two. The factor- and age-based variable weight model outperforms both the factor-based variable weight model and constant weight model in helping bridge owners make maintenance decisions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations55
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructure and Infrastructure EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207