MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W253442962

Developing Pavement Design Inputs for Fine-Grained Subgrade Soils in Manitoba

2011· article· en· W253442962 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haithem Soliman, Ahmed Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Board 90th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgradeGeotechnical engineeringModulusSoil waterWater contentEnvironmental scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringSoil scienceMaterials scienceComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilient modulus is the primary design input for subgrade soil in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). Characterization of subgrade resilient modulus requires instrumentation and technical experience that are not available in many soil testing Laboratories. The objective of this paper is to characterize the resilient modulus of typical subgrade soils available in Manitoba and develop design inputs for the MEPDG. The resilient modulus of fine-grained subgrade soil samples was tested at different levels of moisture content. Results of the laboratory testing were used to develop prediction models for resilient modulus as function of physical properties of the subgrade soil and stress state. A good agreement was found between measured resilient modulus and predicted values with the proposed models. The proposed models were compared to those developed under the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program. The results showed that the proposed models provided more reliable predictions with lower root mean square error.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.337
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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Board 90th Annual MeetingTransportation Research BoardSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207