Machine learning techniques to estimate the degree of binder activity of reclaimed asphalt pavement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes the development of novel/state-of-art computational framework to accurately predict the degree of binder activity of a reclaimed asphalt pavement sample as a percentage of the indirect tensile strength (ITS) using a reduced number of input variables that are relatively easy to obtain, namely compaction temperature, air voids and ITS. Different machine learning (ML) techniques were applied to obtain the most accurate data representation model. Specifically, three ML techniques were applied: 6th-degree multivariate polynomial regression with regularization, artificial neural network and random forest regression. The three techniques produced models with very similar precision, reporting a mean absolute error ranging from 12.2 to 12.8% of maximum ITS on the test data set. The work presented in this paper is an evolution in terms of data analysis of the results obtained within the interlaboratory tests conducted by Task Group 5 of the RILEM Technical Committee 264 on Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. Hence, despite it has strong bonds with this framework, this work was developed independently and can be considered as a natural follow-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".