A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Defect-Based Condition Assessment of Railway Infrastructure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The condition of railway infrastructure, such as rails, ballasts and sleepers, should always be monitored and analyzed to ensure ride safety and quality for both passengers and freight. It is hard to assess the condition of railway infrastructure due to the existence of various components. The existing condition assessment models are mostly limited to only assess track geometry conditions and structural condition of the railway infrastructure. Therefore, the present research develops a defect-based structural and geometrical condition model of railway infrastructure. The defects of each component are identified and examined through literature and experts in the field. Two main inputs are used to develop the model: (1) the relative weight of importance for components, defects and their categories and (2) defects severities. To obtain the relative weights, the analytic network process (ANP) technique is adopted. Fuzzy logic is used to unify all the different defect criteria and to interpret the linguistic condition assessment grading scale to a numerical score. Hence, the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used to integrate both weights and severities to determine the railway infrastructure condition. The developed model gives a detailed condition of the railway infrastructure by representing a three-level condition state, for defect categories, components and an overall railway infrastructure. The developed model is implemented to five case studies from Ontario, Canada. The developed model is validated by comparing its results with the real case studies results, which shows similar results, indicating the robustness of the developed model. This model helps in minimizing the inaccuracy of railway condition assessment through the application of severity, uncertainty mitigation and robust aggregation
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".