MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504245328

Conséquences énergétiques et environnementales del'utilisation des enrobés tièdes lors de la construction desroutes

2010· article· fr· W1504245328 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Glen Philippot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le but de l'etude presentee dans ce memoire est d'evaluer l'impact environnemental et energetique de la fabrication d'enrobes tiedes a base d'un additif utilise aujourd'hui au Quebec, I'Evotherm® DAT H5. Les gains reels apportes par ces technologies tiedes etant mal connus, cette etude se propose de les evaluer de facon plus claire. La recherche s'articule d'une part sur une evaluation comparative des performances techniques en laboratoire de formules d'enrobes actuellement utilisees par l'entreprise DJL, partenaire de cette etude, et d'autre part sur des simulations energetiques effectuees avec un logiciel ecocomparateur developpe par la firme Eurovia en France, dont DJL est une des filiales. Les resultats des simulations sont compares a des mesures de consommation de ressources energetiques et d'emissions de gaz effectuees par Eurovia lors d'un chantier en 2009. Les essais en laboratoire ont porte sur quatre formules d'enrobe de type ESG-10 faisant intervenir trois types de bitume differents. La baisse de temperature appliquee etait de sooc par rapport a la temperature nominale de fabrication a chaud. Cette derniere depend du grade de bitume utilise. Les simulations informatiques reprennent les donnees de fabrication recueillies en centrale afin de pouvoir mener une comparaison des resultats. Il est apparu au final que l'utilisation d'enrobes tiedes a I'Evotherm® est benefique pour l'environnement, et permet une reduction globale du recours aux ressources energetiques non renouvelables. Les resultats de performances en laboratoire, propriete de l'entreprise et non divulguables permettront de juger si malgre ces gains, les enrobes tiedes ont un avenir au Quebec.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207