Industry- and Academic-Based Trends in Pavement Roughness Inspection Technologies over the Past Five Decades: A Critical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roughness is widely used as a primary measure of pavement condition. It is also the key indicator of the riding quality and serviceability of roads. The high demand for roughness data has bolstered the evolution of roughness measurement techniques. This study systematically investigated the various trends in pavement roughness measurement techniques within the industry and research community in the past five decades. In this study, the Scopus and TRID databases were utilized. In industry, it was revealed that laser inertial profilers prevailed over response-type methods that were popular until the 1990s. Three-dimensional triangulation is increasingly used in the automated systems developed and used by major vendors in the USA, Canada, and Australia. Among the research community, a boom of research focusing on roughness measurement has been evident in the past few years. The increasing interest in exploring new measurement methods has been fueled by crowdsourcing, the effort to develop cheaper techniques, and the growing demand for collecting roughness data by new industries. The use of crowdsourcing tools, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) images is expected to receive increasing attention from the research community. However, the use of 3D systems is likely to continue gaining momentum in the industry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".