MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047050089 · doi:10.1061/41148(389)26

Development of Design System for Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement

2010· article· en· W2047050089 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donald J. Swan, David R. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterlockingSubgradeSubbaseCivil engineeringLow-impact developmentPervious concreteStormwaterEnvironmental sciencePavement engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringSurface runoffTransport engineeringStormwater managementStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National, state/provincial and municipal legislation regulating stormwater runoff in the United States and Canada has provided increased incentives for using permeable pavements. In addition, regulatory frameworks for implementation of sustainable design have embraced permeable pavement solutions. These regulations are often called low impact development (LID) or sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). A logical and technically sound design process using design software can support design professionals and help permeable pavement achieve full potential in North America. In 2008, the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) introduced a non-proprietary software program called Permeable Design Pro that integrates hydrological and structural design solutions for permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP). The hydrological analysis determines if the volume of water from user-selected rainfall events can be stored and released by the pavement structure. User defined parameters determine how much water infiltrates the subgrade, infiltrates into the soil subgrade, enters pipe subdrains or flows from the pavement surface. The structural capacity of PICP is determined using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1993 structural design equations for base/subbase thickness to support vehicular traffic. This paper describes the development of the structural and hydrological design methodology with an example of its use.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207