MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129729124 · doi:10.1139/l06-126

Optimization of data collection needs for manual and automated network-level pavement condition ratings based on transverse variability and neural networks

2007· article· en· W2129729124 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Ahmed Shalaby, A Reggin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInternational Roughness IndexRutArtificial neural networkCohen's kappaNonparametric statisticsStatisticsPavement managementKappaSpallData collectionComputer scienceData miningEngineeringMathematicsSurface finishArtificial intelligenceStructural engineeringTransport engineeringGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper deals with two approaches to optimizing pavement condition surveys for the urban pavement network of the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba. First, a nonparametric statistical test was applied to assess the transverse variability of the data. The test compared the ratings for one lane with those of all lanes of each segment. The test concluded that the medians of the two groups are equal at a 92% confidence interval and that there are observed biases in the data. The bias can be eliminated if the surveyed lane is selected randomly. The second approach was to predict visual survey scores from automated (laser-based) measurement of rut depth and international roughness index (IRI). A resilient back-propagation algorithm was selected, and the Kappa coefficient was used to examine the strength of the agreement. The results showed that only moderate agreement was achieved and that additional data elements are required to improve the predictive ability of the model.Key words: international roughness index (IRI), rutting, cracking, spalling, pavement management system (PMS), Kappa coefficient, distress surveys.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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