On the compressibility of tire-derived aggregate: comparison of results from laboratory and field tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compression behavior of tire-derived aggregate (TDA) was investigated through relatively small-scale and large-scale laboratory one-dimensional compression tests, as well as a full-scale field test. Two types of TDA produced from passenger and light truck tire (PLTT) and off-the-road (OTR) tire were tested. The influence of initial void ratio (e 0 ), particle size, tire source, and testing method on the compression behavior of TDA was investigated. The results indicated that the compressibility of TDA was primarily dominated by its e 0 . OTR yielded lower e 0 than PLTT with similar particle size and the same compaction method. TDA in the field was pre-compressed by self-weight, resulting in lower e 0 and compressibility compared with laboratory samples. At relatively high stress levels, all TDA exhibited similar void ratio–stress curves regardless of e 0 , particle size, tire source or testing method. High e 0 , small particle size, and granular particle shape facilitated the sliding and rolling of TDA particles, resulting in high plastic strain. The elastic deformation of TDA, reflecting the elastic behavior of tire rubber, was primarily dominated by the average contact area ratio of the TDA particles, depending mainly on the sample void ratio.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it