At the Robert Noble Awards Luncheon, Wednesday, November 14, 2018, the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association recognized those that contribute to the success of the Association.
The editor, Dr. Steve Goodman selects the winner of the Elaine Thompson Editors Award. For 2018 the honor was awarded for the paper “Network Formation and Properties of Asphalt Modified with Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene and Crosslinked by two Different Crosslinking Agents” by Martin Jasso, Brett Lambden and Ludo Zanzotto.
The winner of the Earl Kee Award for the best presentation by a new author is chosen by a committee of CTAA members at large, appointed by the Board of Directors. The Earl Kee Award consists of both a recognition plaque and a $300 monetary award. The winner selected for the 2017 conference was Adam Marlin for his presentation of the paper “A Review of Distress and Roughness Performance Models in Nova Scotia’s Pavement Management System”
The Norman W. McLeod Award for best oral presentation (2017 Conference)
The recipient of the Norman W. McLeod Award is selected by their peers by ballot at the conference. The criteria for the Norman W. McLeod award are detailed below. For the 2017 conference, there was a tied vote and the Board of Directors elected to honor two presenters with the award.
Mike Aurilio for his presentation of the paper “Predicting HMA Fatigue Using the Double-Edge-Notched-Tension
Pavel Kriz for his presentation of the paper “Asphalt Re-Recycling”
Participants of the Technical Sessions of the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association conference select the winner of the Norman W. McLeod award based on the following criteria:
- Material 35%
Distributed as follows:
- Significance 15%
- Originality 10%
- Scope 5%
- Results 5%
- Oral Presentation 65%
Distributed as follows:
- Organization 20%
- Conciseness 15%
- Stimulation 30%
Evaluation of the material in the presentation is based on the following:
- Significance – Will the paper lead to significant improvements in asphalt pavement technology? Is the subject matter concerned with a major item in a highly specialized field, or with a small but important item in a broad field?
- Originality – To what extent is the subject matter of the paper original, as distinguished from a new treatment of old material presented elsewhere, or a review of information previously published? And what degree of ingenuity is indicated by the research, test or construction method employed, and in the analysis of the data obtained?
- Scope – Does the paper’s contents cover the entire field of its particular subject, or must additional investigation of other aspects of the problem be done before definite conclusions are drawn?
- Results – Were data obtained and do they provide adequate and valid support for the conclusion(s)?
2.2 Oral Presentation
Evaluation of the oral presentation is based on the following:
- Organization – Was the material well organized in the oral presentation? Did it flow smoothly from the introduction to the conclusion in a logical sequence? Were slides easy to read and follow and were they suitably placed in the presentation?
- Conciseness – Was the presentation direct and to the point, covering the subject matter adequately but concisely? Was the oral presentation a good summary of the written material in the Proceedings?
- Stimulation – Was the paper presented in a manner that was stimulating and challenging to all interested in asphalt paving technology? Was the voice of the presenter modulated or monotone? Was the voice loud enough to be heard throughout the presentation? Were visual aids effectively used? Was the speaker enthusiastic and interested in the material?