Comparing of Data Collection for Network Level Pavement Management of Urban Roads and Highways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pavement condition data are collected by agencies to support pavement management system (PMS) for decision-making purpose as well as to construct performance model. The cost of pavement data collection increases with the increase of survey frequencies. However, a lower monitoring frequency could lead to unreliable maintenance decisions. It is necessary to understand the influence of monitoring frequencies on maintenance decision by considering the reliability of performance prediction models. Because of different maintenance conditions of urban roads and highways, their performance show different trends. In this paper, the influence of pavement monitoring frequency on the pavement performance models was investigated. The results indicate that low collection frequencies may result in delay in maintenance action by overestimating pavement performance. The collection frequency for Pavement Condition Index (PCI) can be reduced without compromising the accuracy of performance model, more work should be done to ensure the PCI data quality, thus to guarantee the rationality of maintenance decisions. Effect of frequency reduction on pavement performance (IRI) models of urban roads seems greater than on pavement performance (IRI) models of highways, which may lead to heavier monitoring work for urban roads management. This paper provided an example which demonstrated how a comparative analysis can be performed to determine whether the current data collection plan can provide sufficient data for time series analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".