Evaluation of Joint and Crack Sealant Based on Cyclic Loading and Rheological Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sealing pavement joints and cracks is one of the essential pavement maintenance practices to protect subsurface layers from the ingress of moisture and debris. In-service temperature range can be considered the most important factor affecting the expected life of a sealant. Using inappropriate crack sealant reduces its expected life which leads to reducing pavement design life. Development of a reliable characterization method for crack sealants has been a challenging process in the last decade. Currently, field studies are the most reliable method to evaluate sealants performance in cold climates which is not a cost-effective method. This research discusses two laboratory tests that were used for characterizing the performance of hot-pour sealants in cold climates. The results of a two years field study were used to verify the reliability of these methods. These laboratory methods can replace costly and time-consuming field studies, and provide the ability to test and evaluate the performance of new sealing materials as they become available in market. For the covering abstarct of this conference see ITRD number E216511.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".