MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241749761 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14653359

Methodology development and local calibration of MEPDG permanent deformation models for Ontario's flexible pavements

2021· preprint· en· W4241749761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Waseem Afzal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersFederal Highway AdministrationMinnesota Department of TransportationCalifornia Department of TransportationLocal Road Research BoardU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsRutCalibrationPavement managementMacroInterimEngineeringCivil engineeringComputer scienceGeographyStatisticsCartographyMathematicsAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AASHTO-supported interim Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) was published in 2008 for trial use. However, local calibration of the empirical distress models in the design guide has been an essential exercise for any transportation agency before it formally adopts the MEPDG for practical design use. Nevertheless, a universally agreed upon local calibration methodology using historical pavement performance data from field evaluation has not been available. This research focuses on permanent deformation or rutting models in MEPDG and presents a layer-by-layer longitudinal local calibration process at the DARWin-METM platform coupled with Excel Macros. Using the best input data available, many of Level 3 accuracy, the study performs local calibration for 10 reconstructed and 19 rehabilitated flexible pavement sections. Further, this thesis statistically evaluated the level-3 pre-overlay rut value for rehabilitated flexible pavements in Ontario. A comparison of the longitudinal calibration and pooled local calibration demonstrated the importance of the longitudinal calibration in the quantification of uncertainties involved in local calibration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207