MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W199532274

Flexible reinforced pavement structure-sensitivity analysis.

2000· article· en· W199532274 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jianbin. Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Reinforced concreteForensic engineeringStructural engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a natural occurrence, rutting develops during the using stage of flexible, pavement When the rutting becomes worse, users will experience an uncomfortable feeling. Moreover, this may eventually influence the life span of the pavement. It is of researcher's interest to find out an effective way to mitigate this phenomenon. The application of geotextile/geogrid is a good method. The objective of this research is to study the function of geotextile/geogrid, during gradual stiffening stage. In doing so, this research was processed in two steps. The first step was triaxial tests on the soil sample (base material) reinforced by different layers of geotextiles under different confining pressure. One-dimensional analysis was performed upon the test results. The second step was numerical analysis on the published data dealing with the permanent deformation. Finite Element Analysis and Sensitivity Analysis were exercised. The FEA was undertaken to identify the permanent resilient modulus (PRM) by assuming that the inclusion of geogrid influenced the PRM of all the layers, while the sensitivity analysis was done by assuming that the inclusion of geogrid merely affected the properties of base material. From the experiments, it was observed that the effect of adding more layers of geotextiles was more pronounced than the increase of confining pressure. From the numerical analysis, the conclusion can be drawn that the variation of permanent deformation was very sensitive to the variation of thickness coupled with permanent resilient modulus (PRM) of base layer. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 39-02, page: 0557. Adviser: B. B. Budkowska. Thesis (M.A.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2000.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207