MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W5496890

Thermal Characteristics of Warm and Hot Mix Asphalt during Construction

2009· article· en· W5496890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mm Elshafey, Christophe L. Herry, Ao Ab El Halim, Rafik Goubran, Stephen Goodman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltAsphalt pavementEnvironmental scienceThermalForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialMeteorologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the critical issues during the construction of a new asphalt road is the temperature distribution along and across the newly laid hot mix, which affects the resulting density and ultimately the performance of the mat. This is of particular importance at longitudinal joints that are most often constructed with a hot layer placed beside an existing colder or older layer. Reduced density at longitudinal joints has been linked with premature failure at these locations, as well as the pavement in general. Thermal imaging offers the opportunity to better assess the quality of newly laid asphalt layers by observing areas of low, high and/or variable temperature during the construction process. This paper presents the details of a pilot study carried out both warm and hot asphalt mixes on Victoria Road in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, using infrared imaging equipment to analyze the temperature distribution and evolution of the asphalt surface and the joints between mats during construction. While preliminary in nature, the results suggest that rapid heat loss at the edges of newly placed hot mix asphalt lanes likely leads to reduced density and performance of the longitudinal joints, whereas less heat loss was observed with the warm mix. (A)

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207