MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594237315 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2016-0435

Laboratory characterization of reclaimed asphalt pavement for road construction in Egypt

2017· article· en· W2594237315 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eman Mousa, Abdelhalim Azam, Mohamed Elshabrawy, Sherif M. El-Badawy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMansoura University
KeywordsSubbaseGradationCalifornia bearing ratioGeotechnical engineeringAsphalt pavementAsphaltAggregate (composite)RutCompactionDynamic modulusSubgradeModulusEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceComposite materialGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the engineering characteristics of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), blended with virgin aggregate for unbound base and subbase layers. The proportions of RAP were 0%, 20%, 60%, 80%, and 100% by total mass of the blend. The experimental laboratory testing included index properties such as gradation, modified Proctor compaction, California Bearing Ratio, and hydraulic conductivity. Repeated load resilient modulus testing was conducted on the blends. The impact of load duration on resilient modulus was also investigated. A strong inverse trend was found between resilient modulus and California Bearing Ratio. An accurate model was proposed for the prediction of the resilient modulus as a function of stress state and reclaimed asphalt pavement percentage with coefficient of determination of 0.94. Finally, multilayer elastic analysis of typical pavement sections with the base layer constructed of virgin aggregate and reclaimed asphalt pavement blends showed good performance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207