MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210527921 · doi:10.1680/jbren.21.00041

Restoration curves for infrastructure: preliminary case study on a bridge in Quebec, Canada

2022· article· en· W4210527921 on OpenAlexaffabout
Behfar Godazgar, Georgios P. Balomenos, Susan Tighe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServiceability (structure)Resilience (materials science)FragilityBridge (graph theory)Forensic engineeringProbabilistic logicProcess (computing)Civil engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As critical infrastructures, bridges play an important role in the resilience and functionality of the transportation system. Typically, in the aftermath of an earthquake, the restoration process of the impacted region begins. It is vital for bridges to maintain their functionality and serviceability during this period in order to expedite the restoration process. In this regard, restoration functions are used to assess the functionality of bridges in a quantitative manner before an extreme event. This paper presents probabilistic resilience curve for the Chemin des Dalles Bridge (CDB) in Quebec, Canada by incorporating fragility and restoration profiles available in the literature. The CDB is designed according to older design codes, which they may lack seismic detailing, and it could therefore be susceptible to future earthquake damage. The resilience curves obtained were used to quantify the resilience of the CDB. The results indicate that the bridge has a resilient performance in a code-level earthquake. However, in order to improve resiliency in stronger events, the retrofit of vulnerable components should be considered.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207