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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

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 head0.014
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