Collaboration entre le Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees et le ministere des Transports du Quebec sur le sujet des modeles de comportement des chaussees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'etude des modeles de comportement des chaussees constitue un volet essentiel de developpement des systemes d'aide a la gestion de l'entretien des routes qui seront mis a la disposition des gestionnaires routiers dans un proche avenir. Pour developper ces modeles, le Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees (LCPC) a entrepris d'appliquer des outils statistiques , tels que la theorie des lois de survie, aux donnees recueillies d'auscultations systematiques du reseau national (IQRN). De son cote, le Laboratoire Chaussees (LC) du Ministere des Transports du Quebec (MTQ) a conduit un programme de suvi de sections-tests precis et rigoureux. En 2000 et 2001, les recherches ont porte sur le comportement des chaussees souples ayant un premier entretien sous la forme d'un renouvellement de la couche de surface. La base de donnees specifique a ete constituee au cours du second semestre 2001. Dans cet article, les premiers resultats et les coclusions provisoires sont presentes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".