MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated standardization of bridge inspection data using generative AI

2025· article· en· W7114913434 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Structures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University
KeywordsTransformerGenerative grammarBridge (graph theory)StandardizationBenchmark (surveying)Baseline (sea)Process (computing)Natural language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method leveraging generative AI and natural language processing to standardize bridge inspection data, transforming it into a ready-to-use format for direct use in condition assessment, predictive modeling, and informed decision-making. This entails capturing and evaluating severity levels of reinforced concrete bridge defects from textual inspection data, such as comments provided by inspection personnel regarding type, location, and intensity of these defects. This paper employs three models: (1) a baseline generative pre-trained transformer model, which leverages OpenAI’s large language models to process textual inspection data through an optimized prompt engineering procedure; (2) a fine-tuned generative pre-trained transformer model, which builds upon the baseline by incorporating domain-specific training before being deployed to improve its performance; and (3) a newly developed natural language processing model, which employs conventional natural language processing techniques, providing a benchmark for comparison with the generative AI models. These models are implemented and validated to standardize vast amounts of inspection data extracted from 2255 inspection reports spanning five years (2018–2022) for a set of bridges in Québec, Canada. The fine-tuned model is found to outperform other models in terms of performance, stability, and reliability in detecting and standardizing the severity of different types of concrete defects in bridge decks. It achieves accuracy rates of 98.79 % for corrosion of reinforcing bars, 99.09 % for concrete delamination, and 98.64 % for cracking, scaling, and spalling of concrete. This paper demonstrates the potential for integrating generative AI into infrastructure asset management, an application that has yet to be realized.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering StructuresSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207