MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110096052 · doi:10.1177/0361198120967943

Hybrid Elman Neural Network and an Invasive Weed Optimization Method for Bridge Defect Recognition

2020· article· en· W3110096052 on OpenAlexaff
Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader, Osama Moselhi, Mohamed Marzouk, Tarek Zayed

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkSet (abstract data type)Context (archaeology)Process (computing)Machine learningDeep learningFace (sociological concept)Domain (mathematical analysis)Data miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing bridges are aging and deteriorating, raising concerns for public safety and the preservation of these valuable assets. Furthermore, the transportation networks that manage many bridges face budgetary constraints. This state of affairs necessitates the development of a computer vision-based method to alleviate shortcomings in visual inspection-based methods. In this context, the present study proposes a three-tier method for the automated detection and recognition of bridge defects. In the first tier, singular value decomposition ([Formula: see text]) is adopted to formulate the feature vector set through mapping the most dominant spatial domain features in images. The second tier encompasses a hybridization of the Elman neural network ([Formula: see text]) and the invasive weed optimization (I[Formula: see text]) algorithm to enhance the prediction performance of the ENN. This is accomplished by designing a variable optimization mechanism that aims at searching for the optimum exploration–exploitation trade-off in the neural network. The third tier involves validation through comparisons against a set of conventional machine-learning and deep-learning models capitalizing on performance prediction and statistical significance tests. A computerized platform was programmed in C#.net to facilitate implementation by the users. It was found that the method developed outperformed other prediction models achieving overall accuracy, F-measure, Kappa coefficient, balanced accuracy, Matthews’s correlation coefficient, and area under curve of 0.955, 0.955, 0.914, 0.965, 0.937, and 0.904, respectively as per cross validation. It is expected that the method developed can improve the decision-making process in bridge management systems.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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