MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W248306545

LTPP Keeps Rolling

2010· article· en· W248306545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G E Elkins, Deborah Walker, Kevin Senn

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic roads · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringEngineeringWork (physics)Plan (archaeology)General partnershipPavement managementData collectionResearch programTask (project management)Civil engineeringConstruction engineeringBusinessSystems engineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurately predicting performance and durability is critical to improving pavement design. Since 1987, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program, the most comprehensive pavement research program ever undertaken, has addressed the issues of improving pavement performance and optimizing the Nation's investment in the surface transportation system. This article describes the LTPP program, including its history, goals, successes and future plans. FHWA researchers work in partnership with state and provincial departments of transportation (DOTs) to gather and analyze data from 2,500-plus test sections across the United States and southern Canada. The LTPP program relies on pavement test sections constructed on public roads in all major climate zones and soil types. The main task of the LTPP program is to understand the effects of variations in loading, environment, material properties, construction variability, maintenance, and rehabilitation on pavement performance. A plan has been developed for data collection that links user needs to data requirements and provides guidelines to help transportation agencies and researchers measure data accurately and on a regular basis. The end goal is to develop a knowledge base to help advance management and engineering tools to extend pavement life on the interstates and other roadways. The LTPP program collates and releases an updated database annually and distributes analysis findings via publications and reports throughout the year to help manage existing pavements and inspire research into the pavements of tomorrow. FHWA management has announced publicly its commitment to continue monitoring existing test sections and to be custodian of all LTPP data and information until at least 2015.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2580.256

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic roadsSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207