MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240249979

Polyphosphoric Acid–Modified Binders and Mixtures: Aggregate and Binder Interactions, Rutting, and Moisture Sensitivity of Mixtures

2012· article· en· W2240249979 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research circular · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltRutAggregate (composite)MoisturePhosphoric acidMaterials scienceComposite materialPolymerAsphalt pavementEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringMetallurgy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyphosphoric acid (PPA) has been increasingly used as a means of producing modified binders for the past 10 to 15 years in North America. Reports of isolated or regional use of phosphoric acid and PPA prior to the advent of Superpave performance grade (PG) binders have been published, but the increased demand for high-performance binders resulting from the adoption of PG binders stimulated more widespread research into the means by which PPA could effectively and economically enable binder suppliers to meet these demands. Consequently asphalt suppliers in all regions of the United States and Canada turned to PPA to meet the new specifications. It was found that PPA, when used at levels as low as 0.5% by weight of binder, could increase the high-temperature PG of some binders by one full grade. Most binders required approximately 0.8% to 1.2% PPA by weight of binder and some required considerably more; sometimes more than 2%. Still other asphalt suppliers found that the addition of low levels, typically less than 0.5% by weight, of PPA to polymer-modified binders enabled them to reduce polymer loading without negatively impacting mixture performance and in some reported cases enhancing mixture performance. Almost simultaneously with the onset of PPA usage, concerns were raised by a cross section of individuals, organizations, and agencies associated with the asphalt production and supply, bituminous paving and governmental sectors. These concerns were manifested by fears of mixture stripping because of the hygroscopic nature of PPA and fears of accelerated aging and adverse effects on low-temperature properties of both binders and their mixtures because of the well-known use of phosphoric acids, PPA, and phosphorus pentoxide to catalyze the production of roofing asphalt during the blowing process. There was also the often unstated but ever-present belief that purchasers of PPA-modified binders were being cheated because they were not receiving polymer when purchasing some premium PG grades. Some of these concerns were justified, many were not. The information in this study endeavors to put some perspective around these concerns, to show where there might be cause for concern and where there is not. This document does not provide an answer to all questions and it raises a few questions that still need to be answered.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.275 · 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