Automated data-driven condition assessment method for concrete bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the challenge of automating data-driven condition assessments for concrete bridges, hindered by limited data availability. The developed method consists of (1) data integration and standardization, and (2) condition assessment modules. The first module captures, structures, and integrates bridge data from diverse sources, including inspection reports, using web scraping and rule-based data extraction. It standardizes inspection data through text mining and natural language processing. The second module employs Bayesian belief networks to assess bridge deck conditions, leveraging standardized data. The method was validated on a set of bridges in Québec, Canada, resulting in a structured, integrated data repository with standardized data from 2255 inspection reports. This repository supports the development of advanced asset management tools for this class of bridges. The method achieved 94.6% accuracy, 95.0% precision, 94.7% recall, and 94.1% F1 score, demonstrating its potential to help transportation agencies improve bridge data and asset management efficiency. • Automated method for data-driven condition assessment of concrete bridges. • Automated system to capture and integrate bridge data scattered across diverse sources. • Bridge inspection data is standardized to support analytical use and improved condition assessments. • Bayesian belief networks to enable defect-based condition assessment of concrete bridge decks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".