MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380433708 · doi:10.1061/9780784484890.026

Modulus Mapping of MnROAD Pavement Foundation Layers

2023· article· en· W4380433708 on OpenAlexaff
David White, Pavana Vennapusa, Raul Velasquez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModulusFoundation (evidence)CalibrationStress (linguistics)Geotechnical engineeringCompactionYoung's modulusStructural engineeringRanking (information retrieval)Computer scienceGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several test sections at the MnROAD pavement research facility in Minnesota were re-constructed in summer 2022. Roller modulus mapping was performed to assess foundation layer support conditions, with independent calibration using in situ cyclic plate load tests, and the results are compared with the assumed design values. A new approach was implemented to develop field target values that linked the design loading case with the in situ cyclic plate load testing considering geomaterial stress-dependency, realistic stress-state conditions, and the measurement influence depth of the loading plate. e-Compaction reports were generated for the modulus mapping runs in near real-time to proactively address poor support conditions. Spatial maps of resilient modulus and “blob” analysis maps showing contiguous poor support were generated to improve performance ranking of current experiments. The mapping results identified low modulus areas and allowed for analysis of variability, differences in support conditions between the sections, and between passing and driving lanes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207