MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383104531 · doi:10.3390/app13137813

Using Imaging Techniques to Analyze the Microstructure of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures: Literature Review

2023· article· en· W4383104531 on OpenAlexafffund
Mai Alawneh, Haithem Soliman

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrostructureMaterials scienceAsphaltComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The performance of asphalt concrete (AC) mixtures depends highly on their internal structure and the interaction of the mixture components under different loading conditions. Imaging techniques provide effective tools that can assess the microstructure and failure mechanisms of materials. Imaging techniques have been used in recent research studies to examine and analyze the evolution of the internal structure of AC mixtures resulting from traffic and environmental loading. Increasing knowledge of the microstructural properties and mechanical behaviour of AC mixtures could improve the design process and enable researchers to develop more accurate prediction models for the long-term performance of pavements. This paper reviews three imaging techniques which were used to characterize the microstructure of AC mixtures. These three imaging techniques are digital camera imaging, scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging, and X-ray computed tomography (CT) scan. Extensive insight has been presented into these imaging techniques, including their principles, methods, sample preparation, and associated instruments. This review provides guidelines for future research on using these imaging techniques to analyze the microstructure of AC mixtures and assess their long-term performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207