MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W588469497

WHAT CONTRACTORS REALLY THINK OF SUPERPAVE

2001· article· en· W588469497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Scott Hardaway

Bibliographic record

VenueBetter roads · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompactionQuarter (Canadian coin)EngineeringForensic engineeringHavenCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paving contractors describe difficulties in meeting design and compaction specifications for Superpave mixes while generally endorsing the technology as an improvement. Roughly 69% of respondents have worked with it. One-quarter of those who haven't expect to soon. The mixes take longer to design, cause heavier wear on equipment and take more effort to compact, especially coarse ones. Tenderness, segregation and susceptibility to moisture are among the problems.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBetter roadsSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207