MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973831920 · doi:10.1061/9780784412473.037

Calibration of a Freeze-Thaw Prediction Model for Spring Load Restriction Timing in Northern New England

2012· article· en· W1973831920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather J. Miller, Christopher Cabral, Maureen A. Kestler, Richard L. Berg, Robert Eaton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrost (temperature)Environmental scienceCalibrationTruckSpring (device)Hydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringGeographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major problem with low-volume roads located in seasonal frost areas is their susceptibility to damage from trafficking during spring thaw. Therefore, seasonal load restriction (SLR) policies that limit the axle loads of heavy trucks during the spring thaw period have been implemented in many countries in an effort to minimize costly roadway damage. Several agencies have been addressing the question of when to place and remove SLRs and have expressed the need for a prediction model to aid them in the process of posting roads. Models are available which predict the depth of frost and thaw penetration based upon air freezing and thawing indices, requiring only air temperature data for input. Various forms of these models have been used by transportation agencies in the United States and Canada. When using any prediction model, a key element is model validation and calibration for local conditions. The purpose of the research described herein was to calibrate a freeze-thaw index model for use in SLR timing in northern New England. Atmospheric weather data and measured subsurface temperature data obtained from nine field test sites in New Hampshire over a period of three years were used in this analysis. Frost and thaw coefficients for the model were calibrated on a site-specific basis. Results suggest that frost-thaw patterns were reasonably estimated at most of the nine test sites using this model, although the model tended to be too conservative in estimating end-of-thaw dates, with estimated end-of-thaw dates falling after measured dates in many instances.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207