MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W592188273

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

2002· article· en· W592188273 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Aggarwal, S S Jain, Manoranjan Parida

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Indian Roads Congress · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPavement managementDocumentationChinaEngineeringGeographyBusinessTransport engineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pavement management system (PMS) is a set of tools to assist highway engineers and administrators in making planning and investment devisions for preserving and improving the highway network. The objectives and framework of a PMS, categories of PMSs and the categorisation of pavement management into network level pavement management and project level management are described. PMS activities around the world are outlined: pavement management workshops, international conferences, and documentation of PMS-related information. The evolution of PMS is discussed. The component technologies of PMS are described: data collection and database management, pavement performance prediction models, maintenance and rehabilitation treatments, life cycle economic analysis of pavements and use of new techniques and technologies. The use of PMS in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Italy, Belgium, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kuwait, Philippines, Bangladesh and India is described. PMS software in common use is reviewed.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Indian Roads CongressSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207