MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038871304

Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements National Pooled Fund Study 776

2008· report· en· W7038871304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota) · 2008
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsAsphaltCrackingFracture (geology)CreepFracture mechanicsTension (geology)Finite element methodAsphalt pavement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good fracture properties are an essential requirement for asphalt pavements built in the northern part of the US and in Canada for which the predominant failure mode is cracking due to high thermal stresses that develop at low temperatures. Currently, there is no agreement with respect to what experimental methods and analyses approaches to use to investigate the fracture resistance of asphalt materials and the fracture performance of asphalt pavements. This report presents a comprehensive research effort in which both traditional and new experimental protocols and analyses were applied to a statistically designed set of laboratory prepared specimens and to field samples from pavements with well documented performance to determine the best combination of experimental work and analyses to improve the low temperature fracture resistance of asphalt pavements. \n \nThe two sets of materials were evaluated using current testing protocols, such as creep and strength for asphalt binders and mixtures as well as newly developed testing protocols, such as the disk compact tension test, single edge notched beam test, and semi circular bend test. Dilatometric measurements were performed on both asphalt binders and mixtures to determine the coefficient of thermal contraction. \n \nDiscrete fracture and damage tools were utilized to model crack initiation and propagation in pavement systems using the finite element method and TCMODEL was used with the experimental data from the field samples to predict performance and compare it to the field performance data.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)Same topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207