MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142266243 · doi:10.1139/l04-018

Development of a unique deterioration index, prioritization methodology, and foreign object damage evaluation models for Canadian airfield pavement management

2004· article· en· W2142266243 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Anwar Shah, Susan Tighe, Allen Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPavement managementPrioritizationIndex (typography)EngineeringAnalytic hierarchy processTransport engineeringComputer scienceOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling of pavement performance deterioration is a critical engineering process in Pavement Management Systems. Most of the existing Airport Pavement Management Systems (APMS) employ limited surface distresses in their performance evaluation models. These systems may not serve the objectives of some agencies. It is essential for an effective APMS to include evaluation models that adequately address the specific needs of the agency. This paper presents the development of a unique pavement deterioration index, i.e., the Condition Rating Index, developed for 1 Canadian Air Division (1 CAD). This index is modelled to serve the specific needs of 1 CAD effectively. Performance prediction models for the various classes of pavements are developed based on Markov Chains. The prioritization methodology employed also reflects the needs of 1 CAD. Consequently, this paper investigates the quantification and prediction of Foreign Object Damage (FOD p ). The FOD p Index is developed as well as defined. Prediction models for FOD p are developed along with the establishment of critical states of the FOD p Index.Key words: airport pavement management system, Condition Rating Index, pavement performance evaluation models, Foreign Object Damage, 1 Canadian Air Division.

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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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