Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report documents the results of the 2005 Canadian Asphalt Exchange Program (CAEP). Eighteen agencies participated in the 2005 Canadian Asphalt Exchange Program. The exchange provides an opportunity for participants to compare their test results with those of other laboratories in order to provide a mechanism for reviewing and refining existing test procedures. The exchange also provides information to participants on their individual test procedures and equipment. Five types of binder material were tested in the 2005 exchange: a 150-200A asphalt cement; an MC-250 asphalt cutback; an HF 150S asphalt emulsion; an HF 150P polymer modified asphalt emulsion; and a SHRP binder PG 58-28. All participants were given identical material samples to evaluate. The test result analysis was based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E691-92, Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method. This procedure was used to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility standard deviations for the different test procedures performed in the asphalt exchange. This information was used to determine the 95 percent repeatability and reproducibility limits for each test procedure. The analysis procedure also provided information for each participant to determine if their test results were consistent with those of the other laboratories. The exchange program is voluntary and cannot be used for pre-qualification or specification purposes. The complete report is available on the Internet at Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation's web site: www.highways.gov.sk.ca For the covering abstract of this conference, see ITRD numberE215112. (A)
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.010 |
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".