Comparative Evaluation of Aging Effect Difference between Aging Patterns for Asphalt Binder and Mixture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aging simulation methods for asphalt materials can be generally classified into two types: for asphalt binder and for asphalt mixture. Nevertheless, there exists the aging effect difference between aging patterns for asphalt binder and mixture due to differences in aging experimental conditions. The comparison of the aging effect difference between aging patterns for asphalt binder and mixture contributes to building the relationship and thus achieving a conversion of asphalt aging degree between its binder and mixture aging patterns. In this research, aging effect differences between aging patterns for binder and mixture were investigated in terms of short-term aging, long-term aging, and ultraviolet radiation (UV) aging. The binders were collected before and after different aging patterns and then characterized by physical, rheological, and chemical tests. The results indicate that the aging effect difference between thin film oven test and short-term oven aging test is slight, whereas the aging effect of pressure aging vessel test significantly outweighs the effects of long-term aging patterns with loose or compacted specimens. As for photo oxidation aging, the aging effect ranking from the highest to the lowest is UV aging with loose specimen, UV aging for binder, and UV aging with compacted specimen. In addition, regardless of long-term or UV aging pattern for mixture, the aging degree of binder in loose specimen is more serious than that in compacted specimen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".