MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187221125 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2020-0051

Asphalt pavement friction coefficient prediction method based on genetic-algorithm-improved neural network (GAI-NN) model

2021· article· en· W3187221125 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zhaoyun Sun, Xueli Hao, Wei Li, Ju Huyan, Hongchao Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsArtificial neural networkSkid (aerodynamics)AlgorithmTest dataInterpolation (computer graphics)Point cloudAsphaltFriction coefficientCorrelation coefficientComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceMachine learningComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To overcome the limitations of pavement skid resistance prediction using the friction coefficient, a genetic-algorithm-improved neural network (GAI-NN) was developed in this study. First, three-dimensional (3D) point-cloud data of an asphalt pavement surface were obtained using a smart sensor (Gocator 3110). The friction coefficient of the pavement was then obtained using a pendulum friction tester. The 3D point-cloud dataset was then analyzed to recover the missing data and perform denoising. In particular, these data were filled using cubic spline interpolation. Parameters for texture characterization were defined, and methods for computing the parameters were developed. Finally, the GAI-NN model was developed by modifying the weights and thresholds. The test results indicated that using pavement surface texture 3D data, the GAI-NN was capable of predicting the pavement friction coefficient with sufficient accuracy, with an error of 12.1%.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207