Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-life concrete pavements require less frequent repair and rehabilitation and contribute to highway safety and congestion mitigation.The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning study to identify design philosophies, materials requirements, construction procedures, and maintenance strategies used in Europe and Canada to build long-life concrete pavements.The scan team observed that concrete pavements in the countries visited are designed for 30 or more years of low-maintenance service life.The countries are responding to pavement-tire noise issues in urban areas by using exposed aggregate surface.Some use catalog designs for pavements and geotextiles as a separator layer between the cement-treated base and concrete pavement.Team recommendations for U.S. implementation include using two-lift construction to build pavements, developing pavement design catalogs, using better-quality materials in pavement subbases, paying greater attention to cement and concrete mixture properties, using a geotextile interlayer to prevent concrete slabs from bonding to the cement-treated base, and using exposed aggregate surfaces to reduce noise.17.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".