MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389048940 · doi:10.1080/09613218.2023.2284983

Damage assessment automation for single storey detached masonry houses: a probabilistic approach

2023· article· en· W4389048940 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Sajjad, C Jayasinghe, Piyaruwan Perera

Bibliographic record

VenueBuilding Research & Information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsSAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryRetrofittingProbabilistic logicScope (computer science)Bayesian networkComputer scienceMaximizationSample (material)EngineeringArchitectural engineeringOperations researchConstruction engineeringCivil engineeringArtificial intelligenceStructural engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessing the existing condition of aging masonry houses are of high interest as the cost of retrofitting and repairing becomes significantly higher. Conventional condition assessment tools and methods for single storey detached masonry houses (SSDMH) are time-consuming, subjective, tedious, and sparse. This study aims to formulate a novel framework for assessing the condition of those houses by proposing a user-friendly, effective, and impartial model, for existing structures considering cracks in the masonry walls and the age of the house. This study adopted the bayesian belief network (BBN) method since the existing data on building assessment are subjective and consider multiple parameters. The application of the proposed model was formulated using wall cracks observed in a sample of thirty SSDMH. The Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm was used to compute the conditional probabilities from the data set. The model was tested on ten houses for which the results were positive and validated with the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. However, the scope of the model is limited to SSDMH. Further development of this model may benefit the Surveyors, Engineers, and Architects to make informed decisions quickly by placing the structure at the correct severity level to decide on the renovation strategies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuilding Research & InformationSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207