MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366259148 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2022-0348

Optimizing the inspection schedule for bridge networks

2023· article· en· W4366259148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sherif Abdelkhalek, Tarek Zayed

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual inspectionBridge (graph theory)Duration (music)Computer scienceScheduleCrewEngineeringSimulationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimizing the inspection route for a bridge network is a paramount factor in reducing inspection duration and cost, particularly for bridges located in a large geographical area. In this respect, this study presents a bridge network inspection planning model. The model aims to minimize the total inspection cost by reducing traveling distance, accommodation cost, wasted time, and inspection crew cost. The model was developed based on the main concept of the multiple traveling salesman problem. In this model, a discrete event simulation engine was built to estimate the inspection duration for each bridge in the network, whereas the genetic algorithm approach was used to optimize the inspection route. Python was used in coding the model steps. Web scraping technique was utilized to develop a geospatial information algorithm dedicated to extracting the actual driving distance between any two points in the inspection route. To tackle the limitations of previous models, the developed model considered several parameters, such as bridge inspection durations that are either shorter or longer than a day shift, variations in the accommodation fees, actual driving distance, minimum workload to assign a new inspection crew, and minimum time to allow starting inspection activities in a new bridge. Considering these parameters make the developed model comprehensive and more accurate. The model was tested against a real bridge network in the IL, USA, and it proved its effectiveness in optimizing the inspection route. The model provides strong guidance for consultants and authorities in charge of bridges in planning the upcoming inspection activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring→French-language works237,207→