MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W658940932

LISTENING FOR CRACKS IN STEEL BRIDGES : ACOUSTIC EMISSIONS MONITORING IS BRINGING NEW LIFE TO BRIDGES

2003· article· en· W658940932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Wanek

Bibliographic record

VenueRailway track and structures · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Acoustic emissionEngineeringActive listeningForensic engineeringNoise (video)Nondestructive testingStructural health monitoringStructural engineeringComputer scienceAcoustics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since steel bridges comprise 51 percent of the bridge inventory for Class I railroads, and the majority of these bridges are more than 60 years old, railroads are relying on new technologies such as acoustic emission (AE) monitoring to inspect bridges and stay ahead of developing problems. Acoustic emission monitoring is a non-destructive evaluation technique that listens for the noise that a crack makes in a steel bridge when a train passes on the bridge. The AE equipment, which has to distinguish the noise of a growing crack from other noises, is able to give an indication of how fast a crack is growing. This information, along with normal inspections, can give lead to a better indication of bridge performance. The article describes how Canadian National began using AE monitoring in 1989, and how some of the current efforts are directed at developing a predictive model for different cracks on a bridge. Future plans include pursuing AE remote monitoring capabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRailway track and structuresSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207