Tweaking the System: Modifications to the Superpave Mix Design System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A recent survey by the Association of Modified Asphalt Producers showed that a majority of states now use some form of PG+ specifications, meaning that they have added tests or requirements to the Performance Graded (PG) binder specification. The situation for the Superpave mix design system is analogous. States have added requirements, changed various parameters, and implemented or declined to implement revisions to the AASHTO specifications. In 2004 and 2005, the National Asphalt Pavement Association and Federal Highway Administration sponsored a series of regional workshops across the country to assess the current state of the practice with Superpave and hot mix asphalt in general. Four workshops were held in conjunction with the regional asphalt user producer group meetings. At these workshops, industry and agency personnel shared their experiences with Superpave. One key objective of the workshops was to determine what changes had been made to the mix design system and the rationale for those changes. This paper summarizes the changes that have been made to the system across the country, giving a snapshot of the current state of the practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".