Roller-Compacted Concrete Pavements as Exposed Wearing Surface
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document provides a guideline specification useful for developing project specifications for roller compacted concrete (RCC) as an exposed RCC pavement surface, that may or may not be diamond ground for smoothness and/or texture. RCC as a base/subbase layers is not covered in this specification. The information is also not wholly applicable for non-pavement applications such as backfills, dams or liners. This guideline should not be used as a specification reference in contract documents. An owner, engineer or contractor must consider the available options and apply these guidelines to create specifications for specific local projects. This document references appropriate material standards, test methods and specifications of American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), ASTM International (ASTM), and Canadian Standards Association (CSA). These references assume that the contractor and the engineer will use the most up-to-date and applicable standards or methods that are in effect when bids are solicited for the project. It also assumes that the specification writer will choose the standard or test most suitable for their agency/project. Footnotes accompany many of specification provisions herein. These added details describe reasoning for certain specification features, as well as provide considerations and important information for the specification writer.
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.
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) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 it