MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564824718

Influence of pavement management on road traffic emissions and associated costs

2016· other· en· W2564824718 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Luc Pellecuer

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsTransport engineeringCost–benefit analysisEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental scienceBusinessEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringEnvironmental planningEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To achieve sustainable road networks, long-term social and environmental costs and benefits related to traffic emissions should be recognised and incorporated in the decision-making process of pavement management units. A new tool designed to monetize and incorporate social and environmental impacts in decision making processes was used to assess the life cycle social and environmental benefits of pavement management related to traffic emissions. A case study regarding a 1 km long section of an urban collector road located in Montréal, Canada is presented in this paper. The case study shows that pavement surface maintenance provided an estimated social and environmental benefit ranging from $235 000 to $5 150 000 over a 40 year analysis period, depending on the maintenance treatment applied and the discount rate used. Despite uncertainties, the results unambiguously show that benefits related to traffic emissions were significant and were the same order of magnitude as the maintenance costs. As such, they deserve to be incorporated in the life cycle assessment of pavement maintenance strategies. Preventive maintenance was also found clearly more effective than corrective maintenance to mitigate exhaust emissions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207