MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128131907 · doi:10.1139/l05-044

Construction factors affecting as-built roughness of Portland cement concrete pavement construction

2005· article· en· W2128131907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Duk Gyoo Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAkaike information criterionPortland cementInternational Roughness IndexRide qualitySurface finishEngineeringCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringCementMathematicsStatisticsGeographyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the significant construction factors affecting the as-built roughness of Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. The panel data analysis uses as-built roughness measurements and related construction factors for reconstructed, replaced, and resurfaced PCC pavement projects in Wisconsin from 1998 to 2002. Construction factors are divided into two categories in this analysis: (1) pavement characteristics and (2) contractor's quality-based performance. The analysis utilizes the fixed effects and random effects modeling techniques to identify the significant variables in the model. The research shows that the fixed effects model, of all proposed models, provides the best estimate on the basis of Akaike's information criterion (AIC). The results indicate that pavement characteristics and contractor's quality-based past performance significantly affect as-built roughness. The findings also show that geographic locations are strongly significant.Key words: panel (longitudinal) data analysis, as-built roughness, international roughness index (IRI), Akaike's information criterion (AIC), construction factor, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement, highway construction.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207