Article of RILEM TC 278-CHA: evaluation of self-healing properties of asphalt binders—outcomes and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes part of the activities conducted by RILEM Technical Committee 278-CHA (Crack-Healing of Asphalt Pavement Materials) Task Group 2a. The main objective of the TG2a was to explore and evaluate the experimental methods and criteria for the assessment of self-healing of asphalt binders. The work was developed in two phases. In the first phase, various existing healing test protocols were scrutinized, encompassing time-sweeps with single rest periods (TS-SRP), time-sweeps with multiple rest periods (TS-MRP), and linear amplitude sweeps with rest periods LASH). The protocols were evaluated and compared across different laboratories. The outcomes of interlaboratory testing led to the selection of the LASH-based approach. However, it was acknowledged that new insights and modifications were necessary due to the possible occurrence of biasing effects during the amplitude sweep. Such issues were addressed in the second phase of research, in which a modified LASH-based procedure underwent further investigation using various methods for data analysis, including approaches based on dissipated energy and the viscoelastic continuum damage model.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".