MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313811027 · doi:10.3141/2573-13

Innovative Design, Traffic Management, and Construction of Concrete Overlay Technology: Canadian Municipal Application

2016· article· en· W2313811027 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Pickel, Susan Tighe, Hassan Baaj, Rico Fung, Eric Saunderson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooCement Association of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverlayTransport engineeringAccess managementHeavy trafficEngineeringCivil engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concrete overlays have been used successfully by various agencies. Spragues Road is a two-lane rural highway in the regional municipality of Waterloo in southwestern Ontario, Canada. The highway was identified as a candidate for concrete overlay rehabilitation because of traffic considerations and long-term performance requirements. Before this rehabilitation method was implemented, however, many issues associated with the construction of a concrete overlay on a restricted-width, two-lane rural highway had to be resolved. These issues included facilitating safe and effective traffic management and maintaining resident access, along with other perceived concerns related to concrete construction. More specifically, the challenges included a 12.8-km detour, subsequent increased wrong-way traffic, and restricted resident access when the concrete was curing and when lane elevation differentials separated the travel lane from the residential properties. Throughout the course of the project, evolving traffic management practices addressed the wrong-way traffic and mindful planning maintained resident access. This paper presents a case study of the project’s issues and discusses how they were resolved in the field. The project was completed successfully; various lessons learned are presented. A major part of this success is related to the communications strategy and feedback loop during the project.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207