Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Municipal Pavements in Southern and Eastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many municipalities are seeking ways to more efficiently manage budgets and improve roadway performance. While there are many pavement types available to municipalities, the most common alternatives have historically been asphalt and concrete pavements. The recently released mechanisticempirical pavement design guide pavement design procedure and associated software application (DarwinME) has provided pavement designers with a very comprehensive procedure to develop specific pavement designs that will suite the purpose of the agency while minimizing costs. More robust design inputs have led to improvements in the design of both asphalt and concrete pavements based on long term pavement performance. The designs, maintenance and rehabilitation plans developed for this project are able to sustain an adequate level of service for Ontario municipalities over a 50 year service life. Pavement type selection is one of the more challenging engineering decisions facing roadway administrators. The process outlined in the paper includes a variety of engineering factors such as materials and structural performance which must be weighed against the initial and life-cycle costs, as well as, sustainable benefits. The technical part of the evaluation includes an analysis of pavement lifecycle strategies including initial and future costs for construction and maintenance activities. For the covering abstract of this conference see record control number 201111RT334E.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".