Seismic Resilience of Interdependent Built Environment for Integrating Structural Health Monitoring and Emerging Technologies in Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functionality of interdependent infrastructure and resilience to seismic hazards has become a topic of importance across the world. The ability to optimize an engineered solution and support informed decision-making is highly dependent on the availability of comprehensive datasets and requires substantial effort to ingest into community-scale models. In this article, a comprehensive seismic resilience modeling methodology is developed, with detailed multi-disciplinary datasets, and is explored using the state-of-the-science algorithms within the interdependent networked community resilience modeling environment (IN-CORE). The methodology includes a six-step chained/linked process consists of: (a) community data and information, (b) spatial seismic hazard analysis using next-generation attenuation, (c) interdependent community model development, (d) physical damage and functionality analysis, (e) socio-economic impact analysis and (f) structural health monitoring (SHM) and emerging technologies (ET). An illustrative case study is presented to demonstrate the seismic functionality and resilience assessment of Shelby County in Memphis, Tennessee, in the United States. From the discussion of results, it is then concluded that data from structural health monitoring and emerging technologies is a viable approach to enhance characterising the seismic hazard resilience of infrastructure, enabling rapid and in-depth understanding of structural behaviour in emergency situations. Moreover, considering the momentum of the digitalization era, setting an holistic framework on resilience that includes SHM and ET will allow reducing uncertainties that are still a challenge to quantify and propagate, supported by sequential updating techniques from Bayesian statistics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".