MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386030942 · doi:10.58491/2735-4202.3061

Deep Learning Techniques for Efficient Evaluation of Asphalt Pavement Condition

2023· article· en· W4386030942 on OpenAlexaff
Kamel Mahdy, Ahmed Zekry, M. Moussa, Ahmed Mohamed, Hassan Mahdy, Mohamed Elhabiby

Bibliographic record

VenueMEJ Mansoura Engineering Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutions3v Geomatics (Canada)University of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltProcess (computing)Deep learningComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the last few decades, researchers have been devising a simple and cost-effective method to evaluate pavement distresses to give decision-makers adequate feedbacks about the pavement condition of a certain road. Fortunately, with the evolution and progression of computer vision tools and techniques, good results had been achieved regarding the detection, classification, and quantification of road distress. In this paper, a new efficient process of road distress analysis using deep learning models is introduced. This new process was tested on a collected road dataset to evaluate the efficiency and speed of this low-cost road maintenance system. Promising results were obtained from the proposed process based on the deep learning model used with an outstanding performance of ~400 fps and distress detection every ~5 cm for a vehicle moving at 40 km/h. Furthermore, the output of the developed process was used as an input for the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) calculation module to determine the pavement condition of the road on a single-day mission. The proposed system focuses on detecting some specific types of distresses: Alligator cracks, longitudinal cracks, transverse cracks, block cracks, lane longitudinal cracks, reflective cracks, and sealed cracks. Experimental results show that this process based on deep learning models achieved promising results of ~5% difference from the true PCI, currently calculated in a month, just in a single day using very low-cost methods.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMEJ Mansoura Engineering JournalSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207