Toward a Big Data-Based Approach: A Review on Degradation Models for Prognosis of Critical Infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Safety and reliability of large critical infrastructure such as long-span bridges, high-rise buildings, nuclear power plants, high-voltage transmission towers, rotating machinery, and so on, are important for a modern society. Research on reliability and safety analysis started with a “small data” problem dealing with relative scarce lifetime or failure data. Later, degradation modeling that uses performance deterioration, or, condition data collected from in-service inspections or online health monitoring became an important tool for reliability prediction and maintenance planning of highly reliable engineering systems. Over the past decades, a large number of degradation models have been developed to characterize and quantify the underlying degradation mechanism using direct and indirect measurements. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence, remote sensing, big data analytics, and Internet of things are making far-reaching impacts on almost every aspect of our lives. The effect of these changes on the degradation modeling, prognosis, and safety management is interesting questions to explore. This paper presents a comprehensive, forward-looking review of the various degradation models and their practical applications to damage prognosis and management of critical infrastructure. The degradation models are classified into four categories: physics-based, knowledge-based, data-driven, and hybrid approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".