MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developing an Ontology for Concrete Surface Defects to Enhance Inspection, Diagnosis and Repair Information Modeling

2024· article· en· W4405076000 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

VenueInfrastructures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyBuilding information modelingComputer scienceInformation modelAsset (computer security)Field (mathematics)Asset managementSystems engineeringKnowledge managementRisk analysis (engineering)Data scienceConstruction engineeringSoftware engineeringEngineeringBusinessOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facility maintenance requires thorough inspections throughout a facility’s lifecycle to ensure structural integrity and longevity. A significant challenge lies in managing the semantic relationships between various inspection data across different lifecycle phases and effectively representing inspection results. While numerous studies have focused on identifying, analyzing, repairing, and preventing defects, organizing and integrating this information systematically for future use remains unaddressed. This paper introduces the Ontology for Concrete Surface Defects (OCSD), a unified knowledge model that enables stakeholders to access information systematically. OCSD aims to enhance future asset management systems by providing comprehensive knowledge about concrete surface defects, encompassing inspection, diagnosis, 3R (Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement), and defect concepts. Although the integration with Building Information Modeling (BIM) standards like the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) is not undertaken in this study, OCSD provides a foundational framework that can facilitate such mappings in subsequent studies or applications. The methodology includes reviewing existing literature to define relevant concepts, outlining steps for developing OCSD, creating its basic components, and evaluating its effectiveness. The semantic representation of OCSD was assessed through a survey, confirming its ability to clarify concepts and relationships in this field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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