Comparison of Asphalt Cement Acceptance Methodologies for Provincial Highways in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the Double Edged Notched Tension (DENT) test for acceptance has been the source of considerable technical debate between industry and provincial authorities in Ontario. In 2010, the MTO-OHMPA Binder Task Group agreed that the issue could not be resolved by technical discussion at the Task Group level. Accordingly, MTO and Industry partnered on a unique trial to evaluate the effect of four different approaches to asphalt cement acceptance on full MTO contracts using additional criteria, including the DENT and others. Performance evaluation of the contracts will be performed by the Binder Task Group on a yearly basis starting in the third year of service. These inspections will start in 2014 and will continue until the sections are 7 to 8 years in age. This paper summarizes the methodology for the various test procedures. The results of the laboratory testing carried out on approximately 125 asphalt cement samples collected from the trial contracts are also presented. The differences and similarities of the test results in reference to the acceptance criteria are examined. In addition, changes to the specification for acceptance of asphalt cement on Ontario provincial highways are presented as well as future directions in the research.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".