MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245886227 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646516.v1

Local calibration of MEPDG for Superpave Pavements in Ontario : Enhance rutting calibration and preliminary study on IRI model

2021· preprint· en· W4245886227 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maryam Amir

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersMinistère des Transports
KeywordsRutCalibrationInternational Roughness IndexEnvironmental scienceSurface finishEngineeringAsphaltMaterials scienceMathematicsMechanical engineeringStatisticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide requires local calibration to account for local conditions, materials, and engineering practices. Previous local calibration studies in Ontario focused mainly on permanent deformation models for pavement rutting. The objectives of this study are twofold. First, to provide an enhanced calibration for the rutting models by using more vigilantly cross-verified input data and updated observed rutting data. Second, to perform a trial calibration for the international roughness index (IRI) model by considering three different calibration methods. Cracking models calibration, being performed by another colleague, has not yet been finalized; therefore, the IRI model calibration cannot be finalized in this study. Based upon 63 Superpave sections, the local calibration coefficients were found to be βAC = 1.7692, βT = 1.0, βN = 0.6262, βGB = 0.0968 and βSG = 0.2787 , which reduced the standard deviation of residuals to a value of 1 mm. The IRI calibration study found that the initial IRI value plays an important role in the calibration. Keywords: International Roughness Index (IRI) model; local calibration; Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG); rutting model; Superpave.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207