Performance evaluation of jointed plain concrete pavements with sealed and unsealed joints in North Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint sealing in jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) has been practiced throughout the world for many years as it improves the performance of concrete pavements. The infiltration of water is a common problem in concrete pavements and often increases distresses, such as faulting and pumping. For this reason, sealing the joints can help reduce water infiltration. Additionally, the infiltration of sand and small stones, aggregates, or debris into the joints can also be prevented, consequently reducing joint spalling in concrete pavements. However, it is also reported that joint sealing increases the initial cost of construction, especially if the joints need to be resealed, which leads to some additional costs. In this study, the pavement distress data was collected from the long-term pavement performance (LTPP) database for all the JPCPs sections in North Texas. The study illustrates the relative field performance in terms of spalling, faulting, roughness, and deflections of JPCP sections for both sealed and unsealed LTPP sections of North Texas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".