MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417238022 · doi:10.1061/9780784486139.031

Short-Term Disaster Impacts on Transportation Infrastructure: A Review of Emerging Technologies and Approaches

2025· article· W4417238022 on OpenAlexaff
Beixuan Dong, Lingzi Wu, Xinming Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Natural disasterEmerging technologiesDomain (mathematical analysis)Information technologyEmergency managementCritical infrastructureSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transportation infrastructure (TI) plays a crucial role in sustaining the national economy and human well-being, particularly when subjected to natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Although multiple reviews covering resilience measurement metrics, resilience frameworks, disaster planning, and mitigation issues in TI have been published in recent years, none have systematically reviewed the impacts of short-term disasters on TI. To fill the gap, this study conducted a systematic literature review of the emerging technologies and approaches adopted to assess the TI impacts under short-term disasters. Our study revealed that Geographical Information Systems (GIS), graph models, remote sensing, and machine learning were the prevalent methods. Additionally, we synthesized these methods from three perspectives: disaster application, modeling approaches, and accessibility of input data. This paper contributes to the current body of knowledge by (1) reviewing the emerging technologies and approaches and their applications, (2) synthesizing the current state of knowledge and gaps, and (3) predicting research trends in the domain of short-term disaster impact on TI.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207