MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W644646621 · doi:10.33593/iccp.v8i1.608

Use of Innovative Pre-Cast Concrete Slab Repair Technology in Canada

2025· article· en· W644646621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Becca Lane, Tom Kazmierowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Concrete Pavements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative concrete reinforcement materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalling weight deflectometerSlabChristian ministryPrecast concreteCivil engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringSubgrade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\In 2004, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) carried out a trial project to evaluate construction techniques for pre-cast concrete slab repairs in concrete pavement. The trial was carried out on Highway 427, a heavily trafficked freeway in Toronto, Canada. The trial project required demonstrations of three pre-cast concrete pavement full-depth repair methods: the Fort Miller Super-SlabTM Intermittent Method, the Fort Miller Super-SlabTM Continuous Method, and the Michigan Method. Each method involves designing and fabricating pre-cast concrete slabs to replace deteriorated concrete pavement. The methods differ in how the base is prepared and how the pre-cast slab is installed and dowelled to the existing concrete pavement. Non-destructive testing using a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) was undertaken after construction to assess load transfer efficiency (LTE) and to detect loss of support underneath the pre-cast slab. Details of the methodologies, site conditions, contract specifications, construction and FWD analysis are presented. This is the first construction experience in Canada with innovative pre-cast concrete slab repairs for concrete pavements. MTO will continue to monitor the field performance of these technologies and assess the cost effectiveness of this alternative to full-depth fast-track concrete repairs.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Concrete PavementsSame topicInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsFrench-language works237,207