MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366830516 · doi:10.1080/24705314.2023.2165471

A state-of-the-art review of active-thermometry techniques for bridge and pipeline scour monitoring, and exploratory passive thermometry studies

2023· review· en· W4366830516 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Farooq, Fae Azhari, Nemkumar Banthia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermistorTemperature measurementBridge (graph theory)PermafrostPipeline (software)PierEnvironmental scienceAcousticsGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringElectrical engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the application of active thermometry techniques for bridge and pipeline scour monitoring, and explores the potential for passive thermometry through outdoor bucket-type static scour experiments. Active thermometry uses a device to supply heat and then monitors temperature loss. The heat generation is typically through resistive (joule) heating, and temperature is measured using digital temperature sensors, fiber optic temperature sensors, and thermistors. All laboratory studies in the literature were conducted in static conditions, in which the onset and progression of scour are detected by monitoring the changes in thermal properties using sensors placed along the bridge pier (or pipeline). The passive thermometry option explored in this study involved using DS18b20 digital temperature sensors to measure temperature variations in water and in three sediment types: clay, sand, and gravel. The results demonstrated larger diurnal variations in water than in the sediments. Sensors located in the sediment were distinguished from those in water by examining a combination of decrement ratios and phase shifts among the different temperature waveforms obtained for a finite number of diurnal cycles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural Integrity and MaintenanceSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207