MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206718294 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n13p199

Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations for Developing a Pavement Performance Model

2015· article· en· W2206718294 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ciro Caliendo, Maurizio Guida, Emiliana Pepe

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsRegression analysisMathematicsStatisticRegressionStatistical significanceLikelihood-ratio testLinear regressionSeemingly unrelated regressionsNull hypothesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The paper presents a joint analysis of some pavement performance indicators based on a system of seemingly unrelated regression equations (SURE) which allows to handle correlated error terms. In particular, three major indicators such as the side friction coefficient (SFC20°C), mean-profile depth (MPD), and international roughness index (IRI), were measured in a case study and subsequently used in analysis. Regression parameters were estimated by the Maximum Likelihood Method and the t-statistic was considered to show the statistical significance of regression coefficients. The results show that estimation points have the signs expected: the SFC<sub>20°C</sub> decreases as the number of accumulated trucks (<em>N</em><sub>t</sub>) increases; whereas the MPD and IRI increase as the number of trucks increases. A likelihood ratio test was also carried out to determine whether the system model, which assumes correlation among error terms, was more appropriate than separate models. In this particular case, with three degrees of freedom, was found that the result corresponds to a p-value 0.150 and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at any significance level less than this value.</p>

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 score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207