MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413185884 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2025-0187

Evaluating the suitability of CRMB for high performance asphalt applications

2025· article· en· W4413185884 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Peter Enoyoze, Akshay Waim, Leila Hashemian, Sina Varamini

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsBrantford Energy (Canada)University of WaterlooUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAsphaltEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceProcess engineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High modulus asphalt concrete is widely used in regions with hot/mild weathers and ultra-heavy traffic due to its superior stiffness and durability. However, its use in cold climates is limited, as the stiff binders typically employed become brittle at low temperatures. To address this, high performance asphalt concrete (HPAC) tailored for cold regions is needed. This study explores the optimization of crumb rubber modifier (CRM) content for HPAC applications, targeting a high-temperature performance grade (PG) of 82 as a performance benchmark. A PG 64-22 binder was modified with 30 mesh (600 µm) CRM at 3%–15% concentrations and blended for 30–90 min at 180 °C. The dynamic modulus curve confirmed that 12% CRM achieves the PG 82 target, striking a balance between stiffness and flexibility. Blending time optimization showed no significant difference in PG across durations, allowing for shorter blending times, supporting the feasibility of in-field blending. Although storage stability due to phase separation remains a concern, in-field blending effectively addresses this issue and enhances practical applicability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.271
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207