Laser-based assessment of road aggregate particle shape and texture properties with the aim of deriving comparative models
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
Research was undertaken using an innovative three-dimensional (3D) laser scanning tool to \nstudy the shape and texture characteristics of road aggregate particles. Aggregate materials \nused for road construction, including G1 crushed rocks of different geological origins, recycled \naggregate and alluvial gravel (not used as aggregate) were used for this study. Representative \nsamples were scanned using the laser system to collect 3D aggregate data for analyses and, \nsubsequently, develop comparative models. The objective was to arrange the aggregate \nparticles in a sequence based on their surface texture. Two models were proposed and key \naspects evaluated against each other. Ultimately, one model was selected that may be improved \nand used for further research. The study found that, while it is possible to use the 3D aggregate \nscan data to produce comparative models, distinguishing between particle shape and texture \nproved a daunting task. It was also concluded that particle elongation must be considered as a \nmajor influencing factor.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it