MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989827223 · doi:10.1061/9780784482230.004

Monitoring Populations of Bridges in Smart Cities Using Smartphones

2019· article· en· W2989827223 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Principal component analysisComputer scienceAccelerationCrowdsourcingPopulationReal-time computingUncorrelatedComponent (thermodynamics)AccelerometerData miningArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuous bridge sensing and monitoring is an important component of smart infrastructure. Traditional bridge monitoring techniques require sensors to be installed on bridges, which is costly and time consuming. Also, a certain set of sensors have to be used to monitor a single bridge at a time. In order to resolve these issues, a novel bridge damage detection method focusing on monitoring a population of bridges simultaneously utilizing crowdsourcing data collected from smartphones on passing-by vehicles is developed. In this method, Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) are first extracted on the acceleration data collected from smartphones in all the vehicles within a certain period. Principal component analysis (PCA) is used to transform the features so that they are linearly uncorrelated. The damage is then identified by comparing the distributions of these transformed features. The results from lab experiments show that the approach not only identifies the existence of the damage, but also provides useful information about severity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.275 · 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