MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039794013 · doi:10.1177/0361198120929016

Development of a Risk Assessment Module for Bridge Management Systems in New Jersey

2020· article· en· W3039794013 on OpenAlexaff
Graziano Fiorillo, Hani Nassif

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Probabilistic logicRisk managementRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringRisk assessmentTruckRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceTransport engineeringCivil engineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridges are critical for the mobility of our society and its economic growth. Available funds for bridge repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation are limited. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) introduced several new parameters for improving the management of bridge assets, such as bridge element evaluation, life-cycle analysis, and risk-based performance indicators. Risk-based methods account for the uncertainties embedded into engineering variables and long-term evaluations. The objective of this paper is to identify, assess, and quantify structural risk components to bridges using probabilistic risk methodologies and data from the National Bridge Inventory database. The aim is to simplify the implementation of risk-based ranking procedures into bridge management system packages according to the MAP-21 vision. Therefore, machine learning techniques are employed to facilitate the introduction of probabilistic risk methods into bridge management systems. The procedure is described for seven hazards that are pertinent to bridges in New Jersey: overloading, fatigue, seismic, flooding, scour, vehicle and vessel collision. Risk values are computed in monetary terms to homogenize the comparison among bridges for different hazards. The analysis is performed on 5,534 bridges, showing that seismic events and fatigue resulting from truck overloading are the most dominant hazards in New Jersey, for which about 97.0% and 29.0% of bridges show some level of risk. The main limitation of the proposed framework is the lack of accurate data from bridge inventories necessary to thoroughly perform a fully structural probabilistic analysis of bridges and to minimize engineering judgment.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207