Evaluation and Validation of a Model for Predicting Pavement Structural Number with Rolling Wheel Deflectometer Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of costs and the slow test process, the use of structural capacity in pavement management activities at the network level has been limited. The rolling wheel deflectometer (RWD) was introduced to support existing nondestructive testing techniques by providing a screening tool for structurally deficient pavements at the network level. A model was developed to estimate structural number (SN) from RWD data obtained in a Louisiana study. The objective for this study was to evaluate the use of the Louisiana model to predict structural capacity in Pennsylvania and to compare the results with those of existing methods. RWD testing was conducted on 288 mi of the road network in Pennsylvania, and falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing and coring were conducted on selected sites. The prediction from a model used to estimate SN from RWD deflection data was compared statistically with the prediction obtained from FWD testing and from roadway management system records used by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to calculate SN. The results of this analysis validated the use of the model to estimate the pavement SN according to RWD deflection data. In general, the predicted SN was in agreement with the SN calculated from the FWD. The original model with the fitted coefficients developed for Louisiana showed an average prediction error of 27%. However, after the model was refitted to the data set from Pennsylvania, the average error dropped to 19%. Results indicated that the model developed for SN prediction from the RWD provided an adequate prediction of SN for conditions different from those for which it was developed in Louisiana.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".