MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W571918736

Response to the Paper Entitled "Transition to Superpave Performance Grades in Western Canada" Presented to the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association's Annual Conference in 2012

2013· article· en· W571918736 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D R MacLeod

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltEngineeringAsphalt concreteQuality assuranceCivil engineeringForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeologyOperations management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to ensure that western Canadian road agencies receive the same quality asphalt they have in the past with penetration/viscosity specifications, the adoption of Performance Graded Asphalt Cement (PGAC) specifications require some adjustments. In this response, the Author provides a summary of Husky Energy's position in regards to the adoption of PGAC specifications in western Canada. The asphalt properties from the different crudes have been evaluated. Relying on our expertise with asphalt evaluations from different crudes, we selected a number of asphalts based on the quality according to the PG, the temperature range between the high- and low-temperature PG, and the A grade designations using current western Canadian penetration/viscosity specifications. These asphalts were also selected due to their resemblance to the properties of asphalts produced from Lloyd Blend and Cold Lake crudes, which are used for the majority of asphalt cement production in western Canada. From these evaluations, the adoption of specific PG specifications in western Canada are recommended. These specifications will increase the assurance that road agencies will receive the same quality of asphalts they have under the western Canadian penetration/viscosity specifications. (A) For the paper referred to in this report see ITRD record number 201306RT351E. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD record number 201402RT334E.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.014

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207