Local Calibration of the MEPDG Rutting Models for Ontario’s Flexible Roads: Recent Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarizes the recent efforts for and major findings from local calibration of the rutting models of the AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) for Ontario’s practices in pavement design, construction and maintenance. Unlike many other local calibration studies for rutting models, this study took a new calibration method built upon the more recent rutting calibration results from NCHRP Project 9-30A. To reduce the indeterminacy because of the unknown layer contributions of total rutting, two of the five local calibration factors (the temperature and traffic exponents) were prefixed based upon statistical analysis of the data obtained from Project 9-30A. The remaining three scale factors were determined by using a two-objective optimization strategy that eliminates bias and reduces residual errors. It was concluded that although the Superpave and Marshall mixes share the same set of traffic and temperature exponents, the scale factors are very different. A set of local calibration factors were recommended for future flexible pavement design in Ontario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".