Review of seismic evaluation frameworks for highway bridges based on life cycle concepts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the construction industry has extensively relied upon life cycle concepts embedded in service life evaluation methodologies for decision-making processes. In the present paper, these concepts are considered in the context of seismic evaluation of bridges taking into account the significant economic, social, and environmental impacts of seismic-induced damages to bridge networks. Considering the long service life of bridges and the possibility of multiple earthquakes occurring throughout their existence, it is crucial to conduct a comprehensive multi-faceted life cycle analysis of the effects of seismic events on the performance of bridges. There is still a lack of thorough and methodological examination of frameworks and methodologies for bridge infrastructure life cycle costing in seismic regions, but the field is constantly progressing. A comprehensive review is conducted in this paper on life cycle assessment of bridge infrastructure, specifically focusing in seismic regions, so as to assemble the advancements in the field and identify areas that require further research. The review focuses on the objectives, approach, methodology, integration with life cycle assessment, cost components, and uncertainty aspects of methods that have been proposed in the literature.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it