MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128063153 · doi:10.22260/crc-csce-2025/0122

Automated Life Cycle Analysis Tool for Bridge Design: A User-Friendly Model for Sustainability

2025· article· W7128063153 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vafa Rostamiasl, Ahmad Jrade, Abdallah Al Refa'i, Jieying Jane Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInfrastructure Canada
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)SustainabilityKey (lock)Product life-cycle managementAutomation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale infrastructures including bridges are designed for long lifespans and yet require substantial materials such as concrete and steel, which have high impacts on the environment.Therefore, considering the sustainability requirements early during the design stage is crucial.Life cycle assessment (LCA), which is a systematic and standardized approach for quantifying these environmental impacts, provides designers a better insight to develop eco-friendly solutions that reduce these long-term impacts.It also helps decision-makers to compare different design alternatives and select the one that meets the set sustainability goals.This paper introduces an innovative computer model to minimize the gaps between designing bridges and analyzing their environmental impacts to help engineers investigate and evaluate the design's impact early in the conceiving process.The developed model is a standalone graphical user interface (GUI) that provides a platform to input, process and analyze necessary data for evaluating the environmental impacts across various LCA stages.The development methodology used in this study starts by collecting and storing essential data in a database created for that purpose in Excel and MySQL and thereafter mapping the data with the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), specifically the Ecoinvent database.Afterwards, the model's implementation and creation of the user interface are fulfilled by using C# programming language and openLCA platform.Finally, the model's generated outcomes are provided to users in graphical and tabulated formats.The said model will offer a practical and efficient solution to integrate sustainability requirements during the early stages of designing bridges and will facilitate making informed decisions to minimize their environmental impacts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207