Applicability of the light-weight deflectometer (LWD) to assess the quality of cement-bitumen-treated materials (CBTM) in the Canadian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cement-bitumen treated materials (CBTM) are obtained following full-depth reclamation, and are considered one of the best solutions for pavement rehabilitation from a technical, economic and environmental point of view. Due to the addition of binders and water, CBTM requires time to achieve sufficient strength before reopening to traffic and overlaying with hot mix asphalt. In addition, quality control (QC) is very important to achieve a durable pavement structure. Many agencies in Canada do not have QC specifications or requirements, which limits the use of CBTM. In this paper, the suitability of using the Light-Weight Deflectometer (LWD) for QC purposes in the Canadian context was investigated. Overall, LWD test results showed good reliability for evaluating the stiffening rate of CBTM over time in the Canadian context. Results highlighted that stiffening rate became significant from 4 hours after construction and that traditional laboratory/field measurements were highly variable from one site to another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".