MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119848721 · doi:10.1139/l10-041

Quiet and durable pavements: Findings from an Ontario study

2010· article· en· W2119848721 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M. Alauddin Ahammed, Susan Tighe, Tom Klement

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaUniversity of WaterlooMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDurabilitySkid (aerodynamics)Traffic noiseNoise (video)AsphaltPortland cementNoise reductionWearing courseNoise controlEngineeringRoadway noiseNoise barrierStructural engineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceCementComputer scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic noise is a growing problem throughout the world. Noise barriers, traditionally used for reducing noise exposure, are expensive and inefficient in some cases. Pavement surface characteristics play a key role in noise generation and propagation. Information about noise-reducing characteristics of various Portland cement concrete (PCC) and asphalt concrete (AC) pavements can therefore help public agencies in selecting an appropriate surface that maximizes the structural durability, reduces the noise, and ensures adequate skid resistance for safety. In this study, tire–pavement close proximity (CPX), in-vehicle, and controlled pass-by (CPB) noise were measured at 80–100 km/h for 32 PCC and AC pavements in southern Ontario. The results have indicated that certain textures are needed to allow for air escape from the tire–road interface, which limits the generation and (or) propagation of tire–pavement noise. Both fine-graded Superpave and stone mastic asphalt (SMA) were shown to be promising for noise reduction and have good durability characteristics. However, careful placement and finishing are essential to produce a uniform lower order macrotexture and to attain the noise-reduction benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207