Analytical Inference for Inspectors’ Uncertainty Using Network-Scale Visual Inspections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual inspection is a common approach for collecting data over time on transportation infrastructure. However, the evaluation method in visual inspections mainly depends on a subjective metric, as well as the experience of the individual performing the task. State-space models (SSMs) enable quantifying the uncertainty associated with the inspectors when modeling the degradation of bridges based on visual inspection data. The main limitation in the existing SSM is the assumption that each inspector is unbiased, due to the high number of inspectors, which makes the problem computationally demanding for optimization approaches and prohibitive for sampling-based Bayesian estimation methods. The contributions of this paper are to enable the estimation of the inspector bias and formulate a new analytical framework that allows the estimation of the inspectors’ biases and variances using Bayesian updating. The performance of the analytical framework is verified using synthetic data where the true values are known, and validated using data from the network of bridges in Quebec province, Canada. The analyses have shown that the analytical framework has enabled reducing the computational time required for estimating the inspectors’ uncertainty and is adequate for the estimation of the inspectors’ uncertainty while maintaining a comparable performance to the gradient-based framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".