MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963218653 · doi:10.1061/9780784482469.034

The Selection of PCC Joint Repair Trigger Values and Void Detection for Concrete Pavements Overlaid with Asphalt

2019· article· en· W2963218653 on OpenAlexaff
Atheer Ali Alabbasi, Ahmed Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueAirfield and Highway Pavements 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoid (composites)AsphaltJoint (building)Asphalt concreteForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceStructural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports the results of deflection testing aimed to establish appropriate performance threshold values and evaluate the effect of asphalt concrete overlays (ACOs) on measured deflections and void detection. Rehabilitation planning can be improved through timely joint repairs and detecting voids more accurately. Collected deflections were correlated with load transfer efficiencies at varying confidence intervals to select performance threshold values. Moreover, testing was performed on joints prior to and after ACO milling to evaluate its effect on measured deflections and void detection. Deflection correction factors for each load level are recommended to calibrate deflections to account for the presence of ACOs and to improve void detection analysis. Presented recommendations can improve rehabilitation planning by applying trigger values appropriate to local pavement structures and climate and by accounting for the contribution of ACOs on slab deflections and void detection analysis, without the need to mill ACOs prior to FWD testing.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAirfield and Highway Pavements 2019Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207