MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135144609 · doi:10.2749/newyork.2019.0897

Statistical Analysis of Bridge Management System Inspection Data

2019· article· en· W3135144609 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ahmed M. Abdelmaksoud, Tracy C. Becker, Georgios P. Balomenos

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Computer scienceChristian ministryScheduling (production processes)Multivariate statisticsStatistical analysisTransport engineeringEngineeringStatisticsMachine learningOperations managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridge inspection is essential for sustaining safe and well-performing transportation networks. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) bi-yearly inspects over 2800 bridges in Ontario, Canada. Then assigns each bridge a Bridge Condition Index (BCI) representing its performance level and required rehabilitation.As this is a time and resources consuming practice, this study explores the BCI trends which can allow a better control on inspection and maintenance scheduling. First, statistical analysis is conducted to identify the correlation of the bridge parameters with the BCI. The analysis reveals that the main parameters associated with BCI are bridge age, and time since last major and minor maintenances. Then, multivariate regression analysis is performed to establish a BCI prediction equation function of these parameters. The proposed framework can supplement existing practices for smarter inspection and maintenance scheduling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207