MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082408358 · doi:10.1061/9780784483183.026

Quick Asphalt Binder Low-Temperature PG Determination Using DSR

2020· article· en· W3082408358 on OpenAlexaff
Alaeddin Mohseni, Haleh Azari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2020 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic shear rheometerRheometerAsphaltCrackingMaterials scienceCalibrationCreepTest methodComputer scienceMechanical engineeringComposite materialRutProcess engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringRheologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermal cracking at low temperature is a major asphalt pavement distress that can cause premature failure. For this reason, Superpave system has developed asphalt performance grade (PG) based on environment. Standard test method for determining low-temperature asphalt grade is AASHTO T 313 using BBR (bending beam rheometer) device. This test method has been well adopted; however, challenges exist with the test procedure for wider use. The BBR device needs constant calibration and the test is rather tedious and time consuming. The test involves use of hazardous liquids and needs extensive technician training. One BBR test only provides grade verification and another test at a lower temperature is needed to provide the continuous PG. To improve the low-temperature PG determination, Pavement Systems has introduced iCCL (incremental creep for cracking at low-temperature) test on a DSR (dynamic shear rheometer). iCCL provides equivalent results to BBR, yet requires less time to conduct, has higher precision, provides higher safety from eliminating chemicals, requires minimal technician training, and may be used in the field; hence, iCCL is a more practical than BBR.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2020Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207