MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388676599 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3332667

Crowdsensing for Road Pavement Condition Monitoring: Trends, Limitations, and Opportunities

2023· article· en· W4388676599 on OpenAlexaff
Khurram Shehzad Khattak, T. Aaron Gulliver, Ahmed B. Altamimi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Computer scienceLeverage (statistics)Data scienceProcess (computing)Cloud computingRisk analysis (engineering)ScopusMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RPCM forms a crucial element of preventive maintenance strategies, particularly in light of escalating vehicular pressures and the advent of extreme weather patterns. Consequently, there is a growing demand for cost-effective solutions that leverage emergent technologies such as the IoT, AI, and cloud computing. This research intends to articulate the evolutionary trajectory of road solutions while delineating the prevalent challenges and offering viable trajectories for future enhancements. To achieve this objective, a systematic literature review was executed using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, the aim of which was to discern the inherent challenges of existing solutions. Following a stringent elimination process of duplicates and irrelevant studies, a corpus of 74 research papers was assembled for review. Assessment criteria encompassed the sensing platforms and algorithms deployed, the variety of road deformities detected, and the overall accuracy of the proposed solutions. The analysis revealed a variety of methodologies applied to RPCM, each bearing distinct advantages and limitations. Notably, SP-based monitoring solutions utilizing ML techniques and improved data gathering methodologies exhibited superior outcomes relative to alternative approaches. To conclude, this research elucidates the wide-ranging methodologies in RPCM, critically examining their respective advantages and drawbacks. Among the methodologies surveyed, SP-based monitoring deploying ML techniques emerges as a compelling approach, demonstrating the potential for enhancing accuracy and data gathering techniques. These insights form a valuable foundation for the conception and development of future cost-effective and efficacious RPCM solutions.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207