MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116876001 · doi:10.1061/jitse4.iseng-2757

Digitalizing Bridge Management: Current Trends, Challenges, and a Practical Implementation Framework

2025· article· en· W7116876001 on OpenAlexaff
Saviz Moghtadernejad, Zoubir Lounis, Jieying Jane Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infrastructure Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)ProsperityEmerging technologiesTransformative learningManagement systemManger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transportation infrastructure, including highway bridges, are essential for both economic prosperity and societal well-being. Given the considerable number of bridges that each bridge manger is responsible for monitoring and the constraints on the availability of resources, it becomes impractical to continuously assess the integrity of each bridge using conventional approaches. Leveraging digitalization, driven by technologies such as bridge information modeling (BrIM) and digital twins, promises to significantly improve the productivity of the process, while ensuring bridge safety, durability, sustainability, and reduced life-cycle costs. Many stakeholders are enthusiastic about adopting digital technologies for bridge management but often lack a clear understanding of the benefits and how to realize them. This can lead to a focus on implementation rather than achieving defined objectives, which can hinder tangible improvements in practice. This paper provides clear definitions of relevant technologies and offers practical guidance to transform enthusiasm for digital technologies into actionable strategies for their effective implementation in bridge management practices. It proposes an incremental approach to digitalization in bridge management and conducts a thorough examination of the various levels of adoption. In addition, the paper identifies the opportunities and challenges of reaching full digitalization and highlights the transformative potential of digital solutions in enhancing bridge maintenance practices when implemented effectively.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.025
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infrastructure SystemsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207