MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149713265 · doi:10.1139/l07-092

Asphalt modification with used lubricating oil

2008· article· en· W2149713265 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aaron Villanueva, S Ho, Ludo Zanzotto

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltRheometerMaterials scienceComposite materialDynamic shear rheometerCrackingRutRheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The viability of used lubricating oil as an asphalt modifier was studied, with the enhancement of the low-temperature grade as the specific goal. Used oil modification was found to improve the Superpave low-temperature performance grade (PG), but at the expense of the high-temperature PG grade. When evaluated according to the Superpave MP1 specification, the low-temperature grade of the modified asphalt was not significantly improved due to failure of the bending beam rheometer (BBR) test’s m value. When evaluated according to the Superpave MP1a specification, the modified asphalt overall PG grade temperature spread remained essentially constant, varying only by approximately two degrees. The asphalt took as much as 12% of oil and still had less than the maximum limit of 1.0% rolling thin film oven test (RTFOT) mass loss (emissions). However, the oil may possibly have a detrimental effect on the asphalt quality, such as reduced adhesiveness to the aggregates, leading to stripping and raveling. The field performance test should be checked before considering lubricating oil as a modifier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations97
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207