MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921133523

Evaluation of Pervious Concrete Pavement Maintenance Methods at Field Sites in Canada

2011· article· en· W1921133523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vimy Henderson, Susan Tighe

Bibliographic record

VenueUSC Research Bank (University of the Sunshine Coast) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPervious concreteCivil engineeringStormwaterStormwater managementPermeability (electromagnetism)Environmental scienceEngineeringTransport engineeringCementSurface runoffGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pervious concrete pavement offers sustainable solutions to urban growth challenges by providing a stormwater management alternative. The benefits of pervious concrete pavement are experienced by the environment and community. In order for pervious concrete pavement to have extensive use in Canada, maintenance needs must be understood and proven. Maintenance may not always be required but is often needed to maintain adequate performance of pervious concrete. The Centre for Pavement and Transportation Technology at the University of Waterloo, Cement Association of Canada and industry members have partnered to carry out a Canada wide study to evaluate the performance of pervious concrete pavement in the Canadian freeze-thaw climate. This paper will present the results to date related to the work that has been done in evaluating maintenance methods. Maintenance methods have been evaluated at four of the five test sites that have been constructed across Canada in this project. In general, the results indicate that it is essential to agitate the debris in the voids in order to remove as much as possible. This can be achieved by sweeping either with a stiff broom or street sweeper. Following sweeping, power washing and vacuuming have both been found to be effective. Simply rinsing the surface using a garden hose has also improved the permeability of the field site. An important detail to note is that sites that start with a low permeability cannot generally be renewed to a high level of permeability.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSC Research Bank (University of the Sunshine Coast)Same topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207