MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W222297045

Incorporating Variability into Pavement Performance Models and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Performance-Based Specification Pay Factors

2005· article· en· W222297045 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leanne Whiteley, Susan Tighe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverlayLife-cycle cost analysisService lifeAsphaltLog-normal distributionEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMonte Carlo methodReliability engineeringTransport engineeringStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a recent research study that examined how changes in design life impacts the pavement life cycle cost (LCC) and ultimately how the reduction or addition in LCC attributed to inferior or superior in-service performance could be used as a basis for establishing a pay factor for a performance based specification. Models have been developed using data from the Canadian Long Term Pavement Performance (C-LTPP) that indicate that overlay thickness, total prior cracking, annual freeze index, annual days with precipitation, and accumulated ESALs after eight years, affect the slope of pavement deterioration for asphalt overlay pavements. One of these models, as well as data from the United States Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) test sites, is used to determine the service life of asphalt overlay pavements. This paper examines how the variability associated with overlay thickness, total prior cracking, and accumulated ESALs after eight years affects the service life. Furthermore, this paper considers the variability associated with the discount rate and incorporates all associated variability into the life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). The life cycle cost distributions are

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207