MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297094270 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2022-0086

Evaluation of effect of moisture on fatigue performance of pavement designed with recycled asphalt mixtures

2022· article· en· W4297094270 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vijay Kakade, K. Sudhakar Reddy, Vivek Tandon, M. Amaranatha Reddy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltMaterials scienceCrackingMoistureComposite materialSubgradeUltimate tensile strengthAsphalt pavementFatigue crackingRutModulusWater contentGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The moisture resistance of dense- and gap-graded bituminous mixes prepared with the replacement of virgin aggregates and fresh bitumen with reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) was evaluated using indirect tensile strength (ITS) and resilient modulus ( Mr). The mechanistic analysis was performed to estimate the effect of moisture resistance on the fatigue performance of thin and thick pavement sections designed with dense- and gap-graded bituminous mixes. The ITS ratio and Mr ratio results indicate that the resilient modulus ratio is more sensitive to moisture damage in bituminous mixes than the ITS ratio. In addition, the results of the fatigue life ratio indicated that the gap-graded mix prepared with different RAP content has better resistance to moisture-related cracking in thick pavement sections than the dense-graded mix. However, the effectiveness of gap-graded and dense-graded mixes prepared with different RAP content on moisture-related cracking depended on the subgrade strength for thin pavement sections.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207