MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398222772 · doi:10.3390/s24113287

Smartphone Prospects in Bridge Structural Health Monitoring, a Literature Review

2024· review· en· W4398222772 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ekin Özer, Rolands Kromanis

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Structural health monitoringEngineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringForensic engineeringMedicineStructural engineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridges are critical components of transportation networks, and their conditions have effects on societal well-being, the economy, and the environment. Automation needs in inspections and maintenance have made structural health monitoring (SHM) systems a key research pillar to assess bridge safety/health. The last decade brought a boom in innovative bridge SHM applications with the rise in next-generation smart and mobile technologies. A key advancement within this direction is smartphones with their sensory usage as SHM devices. This focused review reports recent advances in bridge SHM backed by smartphone sensor technologies and provides case studies on bridge SHM applications. The review includes model-based and data-driven SHM prospects utilizing smartphones as the sensing and acquisition portal and conveys three distinct messages in terms of the technological domain and level of mobility: (i) vibration-based dynamic identification and damage-detection approaches; (ii) deformation and condition monitoring empowered by computer vision-based measurement capabilities; (iii) drive-by or pedestrianized bridge monitoring approaches, and miscellaneous SHM applications with unconventional/emerging technological features and new research domains. The review is intended to bring together bridge engineering, SHM, and sensor technology audiences with decade-long multidisciplinary experience observed within the smartphone-based SHM theme and presents exemplary cases referring to a variety of levels of mobility.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207