MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130336953 · doi:10.2749/kualalumpur.2018.0701

Integration of SHM at an early stage in the design and construction of long-span bridges

2018· article· en· W3130336953 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Process (computing)Construction engineeringSpan (engineering)Structural health monitoringStage (stratigraphy)Life spanEngineeringWork (physics)Systems engineeringComputer scienceReinforced concreteConstruction managementCivil engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Automated monitoring systems are being increasingly used on long-span bridges to address a wide range of challenges, such as those encountered during the construction stage or those associated with maintenance and life-cycle optimization. Bridge designers are now more prepared than in the past to consider the use of SHM systems in their work from an early stage, and to support contractors in implementing such systems during the construction stage. Close coordination between bridge designers, contractors and SHM specialists enables the appropriate equipment to be integrated wisely in the construction process, and ensures that full advantage may be taken of the benefits that can be gained from the use of an SHM system, right from the start of the bridge’s life cycle. This can be particularly important, for example, where components of the SHM system require to be embedded in a structure’s concrete during the construction stage, or where the system will play a significant data measurement and assessment role in the construction process as a whole. This is illustrated with reference to current bridge construction projects in India and Canada.</p>

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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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