Optimization of data collection needs for manual and automated network-level pavement condition ratings based on transverse variability and neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".