MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396772891 · doi:10.1061/9780784485460.050

Comparative Analysis of Tension-Compression and Shear Oscillatory Loading on the Rheological Response of Asphalt Binders from a Northern Ontario Pavement Trial

2024· article· en· W4396772891 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Garvin, Jianmin Ma, Simon A.M. Hesp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheologyAsphaltMaterials scienceTension (geology)Compression (physics)Shear (geology)Composite materialGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the rheological behavior of asphalt binders under two distinct loading conditions: oscillatory shear and cyclic tension-compression. Notably, the longitudinal complex modulus of asphalt binders was found to be lower in oscillatory shear compared to cyclic tension-compression loading. Furthermore, a reduction in asphalt film thickness during tension-compression loading led to an increase in longitudinal complex modulus. Phase angle master curves of asphalt binder in tension-compression loading show rheologically complex behavior. Interestingly, alterations in asphalt film thickness had minimal influence on the phase angle master curve for tension-compression, while the phase angle master curve under oscillatory shear exhibited higher values at high frequencies or low temperatures. Additionally, the study discovered that the limiting phase angle temperature was lower in oscillatory shear than in tension-compression. A decrease in asphalt film thickness leads to an increase in the limiting phase angle temperature.

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)0.001
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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207