MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313411076 · doi:10.3390/civileng3040064

Assessment of Infrastructure Reliability in Expansive Clays Using Bayesian Belief Network

2022· article· en· W4313411076 on OpenAlexafffund
Golam Kabir, Shahid Azam

Bibliographic record

VenueCivilEng · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)ExpansiveVariance (accounting)Bayesian networkBayesian probabilityPipeline transportCritical infrastructureComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)Risk analysis (engineering)EconometricsEngineeringMathematicsBusinessEnvironmental engineeringMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Civil infrastructure supported by expansive clays is severely affected by extensive volumetric deformations. The reliability prediction of such facilities is quite challenging because of the complex interactions between several contributing factors, such as a scarcity of data, a lack of analytical equations, correlations between quantitative and qualitative information, and data integration. The main contribution of this research is the development of a modeling approach based on the Bayesian belief network. The modeling results highlight that facility age is the most critical parameter (23% variance), followed by facility type (1.37% variance), for all the investigated types of infrastructure, namely road embankments, buried pipelines, and residential housing. Likewise, the results of sensitivity analysis and extreme scenario analysis indicate that the new method is capable of predicting infrastructure reliability and the assessments were found to be in agreement with expected field behavior. The proposed model is useful in decision making related to civil infrastructure management in expansive clays.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivilEngSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207