Maintenance Budget Allocation Models of Existing Bridge Structures: Systematic Literature and Scientometric Reviews of the Last Three Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bridges play an increasingly indispensable role in endorsing the economic and social development of societies by linking highways and facilitating the mobility of people and goods. Concurrently, they are susceptible to high traffic volumes and an intricate service environment over their lifespans, resulting in undergoing a progressive deterioration process. Hence, efficient measures of maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation planning are critical to boost the performance condition, safety, and structural integrity of bridges while evading less costly interventions. To this end, this research paper furnishes a mixed review method, comprising systematic literature and scientometric reviews, for the meticulous examination and analysis of the existing research work in relation with maintenance fund allocation models of bridges (BriMai_all). With that in mind, Scopus and Web of Science databases are harnessed collectively to retrieve peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject, culminating in 380 indexed journal articles over the study period (1990–2025). In this respect, VOSviewer and Bibliometrix R package are utilized to create a visualization network of the literature database, covering keyword co-occurrence analysis, country co-authorship analysis, institution co-authorship analysis, journal co-citation analysis, journal co-citation, core journal analysis, and temporal trends. Subsequently, a rigorous systematic literature review is rendered to synthesize the adopted tools and prominent trends of the relevant state of the art. Particularly, the conducted multi-dimensional review examines the six dominant methodical paradigms of bridge maintenance management: (1) multi-criteria decision making, (2) life cycle assessment, (3) digital twins, (4) inspection planning, (5) artificial intelligence, and (6) optimization. It can be argued that this research paper could assist asset managers with a practical guide and a protocol to plan maintenance expenditures and implement sustainable practices for bridges under deterioration.
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 | 0.039 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".