MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212265469 · doi:10.3390/ma14226828

Enhanced Acceptance Specification of Asphalt Binder to Drive Sustainability in the Paving Industry

2021· article· en· W3212265469 on OpenAlexafffund
Yiming Li, Simon A.M. Hesp

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersMinistère des Transports
KeywordsAsphaltCreepDynamic shear rheometerMaterials scienceCrackingRutFatigue crackingRheometerUltimate tensile strengthStiffnessComposite materialRheologyStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing small amounts of extracted and recovered asphalt binder as used in construction allows for the acceptance of materials in accordance with traffic and climate requirements. This approach facilitates the sustainable use of resources and thus prepares the paving industry for the true circular economy. Oscillatory, creep, and failure tests in a rheometer are compared for the performance grading of 32 asphalt binders extracted and recovered from real-world contract samples. Films 8 mm in diameter and 0.5 mm thick were tested from 35 to -5 °C in dynamic shear, followed by shear creep at 0 and 5 °C, and finally in tertiary tensile creep at 15 °C. The enhanced protocol uses a very small amount of material in contrast to current methods, yet it provides comparable results. Phase angle measurements appear to be optimal for performance grading, but further field study is required to determine if additional binder properties such as stiffness and/or failure strain would be required for the control of cracking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207