MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393159917 · doi:10.1080/15732479.2024.2331103

Detecting, monitoring and modeling damage within the decision-making process in the context of managing bridges: a review

2024· review· en· W4393159917 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStructure and Infrastructure Engineering · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Risk analysis (engineering)EngineeringComputer scienceForensic engineeringBusinessGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expansion of transportation infrastructure and the aging and deterioration of its constituent elements make bridge maintenance management programs more expensive and complex. In this context, a bridge management system (BMS) has become a fundamental tool for managing and controlling the entire process involving the structures, from design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Information regarding bridges, inspection, and damage detection should be standardized and digitized for stakeholder access. The provided bibliometric analysis demonstrates that inspection, structural health monitoring (SHM), deterioration, damage detection, and decision-making are trending topics. These topics guided a comprehensive literature review bringing advances and discussing assessment quality, the ability to detect damage, and the most accurate and cost-effective intervention. Finally, the challenges and limitations of these topics are identified, and possible solutions to overcome these limitations are discussed.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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