Mapping Ground Penetrating Radar Amplitudes Using Artificial Neural Network and Multiple Regression Analysis Methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bridges are aging and deteriorating. Thus, the development of Bridge Management Systems (BMSs) became imperative nowadays. Condition assessment is one of the most critical and vital components of BMSs. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is one of the non-destructive techniques (NDTs) that are used to evaluate the condition of bridge decks which are subjected to the rebar corrosion. The objective of the proposed method is to develop standardized amplitude scale for bridge decks based on a hybrid optimization-decision making model. Shuffled frog leaping algorithm is employed to compute the optimum thresholds. Then, polynomial regression and artificial neural network models are designed to predict the prioritizing index based on a set of multi-criteria decision-making methods. The weibull distribution is utilized to capture the stochastic nature of deterioration of concrete bridge decks. Lastly, a case study is presented to demonstrate the capabilities of the proposed method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it