MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405567701 · doi:10.1155/atr/2270042

Introducing an Experimental Model of Asphalt Shear Strength Using Designed Jaws and Presentation of Shear Strength Prediction Model by Genetic Programming Method

2024· article· en· W4405567701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Morteza Modarresi, Hassan Divandari, Mohsen Amouzadeh Omrani, Mojtaba Esmaeilnia Amiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear (geology)AsphaltGenetic programmingShear strength (soil)Structural engineeringGene expression programmingGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeologyMaterials scienceComposite materialMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main material used in the construction of roads is asphalt. Therefore, the recognition of asphalt’s mechanical aspects is very important. One of the important features of asphalt is its shear strength, which should be measured accurately. However, the methods that have been presented to measure this important factor of asphalt always encounter weaknesses. So, it is necessary to find a suitable method to determine the shear strength of asphalt with more accurate results and high compatibility with reality. In this regard, the purpose of the present research was to design jaws in order to measure the shear strength in the direction and opposite direction of the traffic path and provide a model to predict shear strength using Marshall stability resulting from invented jaws. In order to examine the accuracy of the designed jaw in this study, two different types of asphalt, Binder 0–25 and Topeka 0–19 grading, were used. For this purpose, Marshall stability and shear strength tests in the direction and opposite direction of the Marshall were conducted with 12 repetitions on these samples. Also, the genetic programming (GP) evolutionary algorithm was applied in this study to provide a prediction model of shear strength. The results of this study indicated that there was a significant relationship between the Marshall stability and the shear strength in the direction and opposite direction of the Marshall applying the invented jaws in both asphalt types, and the coefficient of determination (R2) for the Binder and Topeka were 0.93 and 0.97 in the Marshall’s direction and 0.96 and 0.95 for the Marshall’s opposite direction, respectively. Also, the results of the GP method indicated that the relationships between predicted and actual values of shear strength for Binder and Topeka asphalt types were appropriately described by R2 of 99.47% and 99.21% with RMSE of 8.0177 and 5.0143 in the traffic direction, and R2 of 97.45% and 98.08% with RMSE of 1.2684 and 0.7035 in the traffic opposite direction, respectively. Therefore, GP provided a more suitable fit of all experimental data for both Binder and Topeka asphalts, and it can be said that with the help of new designed jaws, the shear strength in the direction and opposite direction of the Marshall can be estimated with high accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207