Field performance comparison of asphalt crack-filling materials: hot pour versus cold pour
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".