Comparison of the rutting potential of paving mixes produced from different asphalt binders with the same superpave high-temperature performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asphalt binders with the same high-temperature performance grade (PG 64-xx), but prepared by different methods to cover the spectrum of conventional, oxidized, and polymer and crumb rubber modified binders, were selected for the testing of the rutting potential of paving mixes with these asphalt binders. The rutting potential of the paving mixes was studied using the wheel-tracking test. Moving loads were applied through wheels with solid rubber tires, which traveled with a reciprocating motion on two gyratory compacted cylindrical specimens that were paired together. Gyratory compaction was employed to compact the test mixes to achieve uniform density and air void distribution within individual specimens. The asphalt mixes were compacted using the same aggregate gradation, according to the Superpave mix design. The machine allowed rut tests to be conducted at different temperatures. The results of a test program are reported to demonstrate the effects of asphalt binders and the temperature on rut development in asphalt mixes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".