MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Pavement Condition Index Using Fuzzy Logic Technique

2022· article· en· W4283791591 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdualmtalab Abdualaziz Ali, Usama Heneash, Amgad Hussein, Mohamed Eskebi

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicRutPavement managementDefuzzificationConsistency (knowledge bases)Fuzzy setMean squared errorMathematicsData miningStatisticsComputer scienceEngineeringFuzzy numberArtificial intelligenceCivil engineeringGeographyAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fuzzy logic technique is one of the effective approaches for evaluating flexible and rigid pavement distress. The process of classifying pavement distress is usually performed by visual inspection of the pavement surface or using data collected by automated distress measurement equipment. Fuzzy mathematics provides a convenient tool for incorporating subjective analysis, uncertainty in pavement condition index, and maintenance-needs assessment, and can greatly improve consistency and reduce subjectivity in this process. This paper aims to develop a fuzzy logic-based system of pavement condition index and maintenance-needs evaluation for a pavement road network by utilizing pavement distress data from the U.S. and Canada. Considering rutting, fatigue cracking, block cracking, longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, potholes, patching, bleeding, and raveling as input variables, the variables were fuzzified into fuzzy subsets. The fuzzy subsets of the variables were considered to have triangular membership functions. The relationships between nine pavement distress parameters and PCI were represented by a set of fuzzy rules. The fuzzy rules relating input variables to the output variable of sediment discharge were laid out in the IF–THEN format. The commonly used weighted average method was employed for the defuzzification procedure. The coefficient of determination (R2), root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were used as the performance indicator metrics to evaluate the performance of analytical models.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfrastructuresSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207