Comparison of Cold In-place Recycling and Full-Depth Reclamation Materials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project was done to compare the Marshall stability and the rutting resistance of different cold recycled mixes. 100% RAP (CIR), which are labeled MR7 in this paper, were compared with mixes containing RAP and aggregates (FDR). The other mixes are MR6-75% (75% RAP), MR6-85% (85% RAP) and MR5 (50% RAP). Marshall stability was chosen because it’s the test used for cold recycled mix design in Quebec. As for rutting resistance, it was selected because rutting resistance can be an issue with those types of mixes. The different mixes were designed at their optimum binder content and compacted with the Marshall hammer or the LCPC slab compactor before being cured in the oven at 38oC for 10 days. The dry Marshall stability was the highest for the MR5 (lowest total binder content), but it also had the highest loss of stability after a wet cure. As for the rutting resistance, The MR5 and the MR7 both performed better than the 2 MR6, but all 4 mixes had better rutting resistance than what is required in Quebec.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it