MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W594153906

In-Place Recycling in an Urban Setting

2007· article· en· W594153906 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Trevor Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueBetter roads · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphaltEnvironmental planningTransport engineeringCivil engineeringBusinessEngineeringForensic engineeringGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, part of a series on asphalt recycling, describes how the town of Markham, Ontario, has made in-place asphalt recycling an important part of its road management program. Originally, the town moved toward in-place asphalt recycling to save money, but over the past few years it has been shown to reduce fuel consumption and improve the quality and performance of the city’s roads. The article explains how the city decides which roads are candidates for rehabilitation, how to prepare the surface prior to performing the in-place recycling process, and how the contractor works in tight spaces in urban areas. Since the program began in 2002, the city has already seen positive results and savings. Those roads completed six years ago show no signs of the problems usually noticed after three or fours years using the older method of milling and overlay.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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