MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409799934 · doi:10.11159/icgre25.101

Predicting the Resilient Moduli of Unbound Base Material Using Field and Laboratory Light-Weight Deflectometer Tests

2025· article· en· W4409799934 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dina K Kuttah

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrafikverket
KeywordsFalling weight deflectometerModuliBase (topology)Materials scienceComposite materialMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that unbound granular materials (UGMs) play a fundamental role as the base layer in flexible pavements.The dynamic properties, namely the resilient moduli, are quite important to characterize the unbound materials for the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG).The repeated load triaxial (RLT) test used to measure the resilient moduli is a rather expensive and time-consuming test.In this study, extensive research has been carried out to establish the relationship between the resilient moduli (Mr) measured by RLT tests and the dynamic deformation moduli (Evd) measured by a simpler technique, namely the Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) tests, for a local type of commonly available unbound material in Sweden.To measure the dynamic material parameters using the LWD and RLT tests under similar test conditions, a series of in situ and laboratory LWD and RLT tests were carried out at different moisture contents and stress levels.The overall test results were analyzed, and a strong regression correlation (R=0.95) was found between the dynamic parameters measured from the RLT and LWD tests for the tested material.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207