Lifetime Resilience Measurement of River-Crossing Bridges with Scour Countermeasures under Multiple Hazards
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
River-crossing bridges are often subject to multiple hazards, including foundation scour, seismic attacks, and environmental degradation. When river-crossing bridges are in service, they should be restored rapidly after any disruption over their lifetime. To achieve this resilient quality, it is necessary to assess the system resilience subjected to multihazard impacts and the beneficial effects of any retrofitting or hazard-countermeasure in a lifetime context. To river-crossing bridges, one important intervention is to implement scour countermeasures. This study presents a probabilistic framework to quantify the lifetime system resilience of river-crossing bridges subject to multiple hazards. Notably, the framework is designed to reveal how progressive and abrupt hazards interact and result in resilience degradation and how scour countermeasures contribute to resilience enhancement. Experimental outcomes reveal the positive and distinct effects of implementing scour countermeasures at different times. The proposed framework is expected to assist civil engineers in conducting lifecycle management of river-crossing bridges that are subject to hydraulic scour and demand timely countermeasures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it