MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Models Development for Asphalt Pavement Performance Index in Different Climate Regions Using Soft Computing Techniques

2023· article· en· W6963636162 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean squared errorArtificial neural networkSoft computingPavement engineeringLinear regressionAsphalt pavementCoefficient of determinationPavement management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is one of the most critical pavement performance indicators and ride quality. This study aims to develop PCI models based on pavement distress parameters using conventional technique and artificial neural network (ANN) technique across two climate regions in the U.S. and Canada. The long-term pavement performance (LTPP) database was used to obtain pavement distress data, including pavement age, rutting, fatigue cracking, block cracking, longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, potholes, patching, bleeding, and ravelling, as input variables for predicting PCI. Forty-three flexible pavement segments were considered with 333 observations. The type, severity, and extent of surface damage and the PCI were determined for each pavement segment. Two modelling techniques were conducted to predict the PCI, namely, multiple linear regression (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN). The coefficient of determination (R2), Root mean squared error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were used to examine the performance of the two techniques adopted in this study. The models' results determined that both ANN and MLR models could predict PCI with high accuracy; ANN models were more accurate and efficient. ANN provided the highest accuracy in predicting PCI of pavement for wet and wet no-freeze climate regions, with R2 values of 99.8%, 98.3 %: RMSE values of 0.44%, 1.413%, and MAE values of 0.44%, 1.022%, respectively. Whereas in the MLR method, R2 values of 86.8% and 89.4%: RMSE values of 7.195%, 7.324%, and MAE values of 5.616%, 5.79% for wet and wet no freeze climate regions, respectively.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207