Approaching road design from a sustainability perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The construction industry began emphasizing the three major pillars of sustainable development after the 1987 Brundtland Report. Sustainable design methodologies focus on life-cycle costs and the associated impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance. Maintaining road infrastructure accounts for a significant portion of the development budget owing to recurring costs, construction, and material extraction, while also resulting in other difficulties for the society. Poor road quality induce increased cost of living and degraded quality of life. Owing to front-end costs, road owners are typically motivated to pursue designs focused on the project’s initial cost. This is primarily attributable to a lack of understanding of sustainable development parameters. Life cycle cost attempts to quantify the environmental costs of sustainable construction. However, societal factors have been generally ignored. Currently, road section design is open to the designers’ choice of conventional unreinforced sections or a wide variety of planar and three-dimensional geosynthetic reinforcements. This study defined quantitative and scaled qualitative measures for designing road infrastructure using a sustainable approach. The methodology was explained using a full-scale real-life road project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".