MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095827314

Accelerated Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation

2014· article· en· W7095827314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckDriver rehabilitationRehabilitationPortland cementScope (computer science)Pavement engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As highway agencies across the country attempt to balance rebuild existing highways while they reduce congestion and user delays and improving safety, the use of accelerated highway rehabilitation methods has become a necessity. This has been the case for the California De-partment of Transportation (Caltrans), which recently undertook a major concrete pavement rehabilitation project on I-15 near the city of Ontario, California. The I-15 Ontario Corridor carries about 200,000 ADT with 4-6 lanes each direction, about 6 percent of which is heavy trucks during peak hours. The size of the project is approximately $86 million in the engineer’s estimate cost. It is scheduled to start construction on February 2009 and to be completed by April 2010. The major scope of the project is the replacement of concrete pavement on two outside lanes in both directions along the 7.5-km (4.7-mi) stretch. Due to a complexity of con-struction access and rehabilitation process, the project was designed to implement various types of concrete pavement rehabilitation methods. Basically, the old concrete pavement will be re-placed with one of: (1) normal portland cement concrete (28-day curing-time mix); (2) rapid strength concrete (12-hour curing-time mix); (3) fast-setting hydraulic cement concrete (4-hour

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207