MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168693570 · doi:10.1061/9780784483541.027

Climate Change Implications for Asphalt Binder Selection in Pavement Construction across Ontario

2021· article· en· W3168693570 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdul Basit, Mohammad Shafiee, Rashid Bashir, Matthew A. Perras

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltClimate changeEnvironmental scienceAsphalt pavementCivil engineeringEngineeringGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The climate in Canada has warmed and will continue to warm faster in the future, which will result in more intense and frequent temperature variations. Asphalt binder selection based on the Superpave performance grade (PG) system relies on historic climatic conditions in relation to the expected in-service temperature range of the flexible pavement. In view of climate change, it is crucial to investigate the extent to which pavement surface temperatures will be affected by ambient conditions of the future in order to assess the relative impact on the appropriate PG for more durable and resilient pavement construction. In this study, the latest long-term pavement performance (LTPP) model was used to determine the asphalt pavement surface temperatures. For different representative concentration pathways (RCP), the relative impact of climate change on pavement temperature extremes and thereby appropriate PG to meet projected pavement temperatures was assessed using the LTPP models. The results of this study indicate that in the future, climate variations will cause changes to asphalt binder grades across the examined locations in Ontario, which depend on the severity of the projected warming. This research offers useful suggestions that can be incorporated by the road agencies and designers towards adaptation of pavement construction materials suitable to the changing climate.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207