A Bayesian belief network approach to bridge infrastructure resilience assessment against seismic hazard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like other infrastructure, bridges are seriously affected by natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes, significantly affecting communities, transportation networks, and economic development. Hence, it is essential to assess the resilience of the bridge infrastructure. This study introduces the Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) model as a strategy for assessing the seismic resilience of bridges. The BBN model is developed based on the existing literature, multiple expert opinions, and the Bayesian network approach. This method minimizes the need for a large amount of historical data. The BBN model is credible in effectively addressing complex relationships among the parameters and uncertainties associated with seismic resilience through conditional probability tables (CPTs). Enhancing the study’s analytical integrity involves conducting sensitivity, scenario, and extreme condition tests, as well as applying the model to two bridge examples. The outcome of the model analysis provides a more accurate evaluation of the bridge and improves the evaluation of bridge seismic resilience. This resilience assessment of bridge infrastructure aids policymakers, engineers, and stakeholders in constructing enduring transportation networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".