City of Winnipeg's Experience with Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) has gained popularity in Canada because of its potential economic and environmental benefits. The City of Winnipeg Public Works Department initiated a study in 2013 with the University of Manitoba to evaluate the field performance of RAS in HMA overlays of concrete pavement in the City. Fifteen (15) field trials using 3 percent RAS in 50mm HMA overlays were built between 2010 and 2013 and were selected for field evaluation. The City of Winnipeg's Type-1A (Control) mix was placed alongside the RAS mix at eleven of the fifteen locations as a control for the field comparison. Post-overlay distress surveys were conducted in 2013 to evaluate and compare the field performance of the RAS and Control overlays. In addition, the asphalt binders were extracted from the RAS and Control mixes and graded using the Superpave performance binder tests. This paper presents the findings of the field evaluation and comparison of the RAS and Control overlay performance. The results will assist in the development of guidelines and recommendations for the future use of RAS in HMA overlays in the City of Winnipeg.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".