MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Earthwork Volumes of Curved Roadways: Simulation Model

2003· article· en· W2164052991 on OpenAlexaff
Said M. Easa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Surveying Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Modeling in Geospatial Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarthworksTerrainMathematical modelConstant (computer programming)Monte Carlo methodSettlement (finance)Probabilistic logicGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthwork volumes represent the basis on which contractors are paid for highway construction. The earthwork volumes between successive roadway stations are also used in determining the economic distribution of earthwork. It is essential that the volumes should be accurately computed because disagreements related to earthwork volumes often cause the owner and the contractor to look to the courts for settlement. The traditional model for estimating earthwork volumes of curved roadways (flat horizontal curves) is suitable only for level terrains. For moderately fluctuating terrains, a mathematical model has been developed. This model, however, assumes that the longitudinal ground profile between successive stations is linear and the ground cross slope is constant. The mathematical model is not accurate for greatly fluctuating profiles, such as those in hilly and mountainous terrains. This paper develops a model for estimating earthwork volumes for such profiles using Monte Carlo simulation. The paper illustrates how a completely deterministic problem can be solved using a probabilistic simulation. The results show that the simulation model improves the estimates of earthwork volumes compared to traditional and mathematical models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Surveying EngineeringSame topic3D Modeling in Geospatial ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207