Field performance comparison of asphalt crack-filling materials: hot pour versus cold pour
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important components of pavement maintenance has been the sealing of cracks. The most commonly used materials for crack sealing are hot-pour sealants, such as hot rubber asphalt. However, this material can be hazardous at high operating temperatures and is more likely to be picked up by vehicle tires if the sealant is not sufficiently adhered to the pavement. Thus, cold-pour sealants have been considered as an alternative for crack sealing purposes. This study aims to compare the performance of hot-pour rubber asphalt crack sealant and cold-pour asphalt emulsion crack sealant in five different Texas districts that experience different weather conditions. The comparison includes seven different crack sealants: three cold pour and four hot pour. Five different roads in five districts were selected for comparison of the sealants. The field study results indicate that hot-pour sealants performed better than cold-pour sealants.Key words: sealants, emulsified crack sealants, crack sealing, asphalt pavements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it