Bibliographic record
Abstract
The technical papers presented in this special publication represent the efforts of students from 16 colleges and universities across North America. Over 600 students have participated in the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge since its inception in 1998. The 2000 Ethanol Vehicle Challenge was the final year of this successful 3-year advanced vehicle competition series. The papers presented are enhanced and expanded versions of those prepared in advance of the competition by the participating student engineers. They describe the design elements, construction details, and performance of the dedicated ethanol vehicles brought to the Challenge by the participating universities. The goal of this competition was to demonstrate the potential of E85 (85% denatured ethanol and 15% hydrocarbon primer) to significantly lower emissions and improve the performance, fuel efficiency and cold starting of vehicles fueled by ethanol. The competition series began with a Request for Proposals in January 1997. A letter announcing and soliciting interest in the competition (Notice of Interest) was sent to all accredited engineering programs and two-year technical schools in the US and Canada. The Notice described the competition and the requirements for the conversion of a 1997 Chevrolet Malibu to dedicated E85 operation. On the basis of the submitted proposals, 14 schools were selected to participate in the first competition in 1998. Those schools were invited to participate again in 1999. Two additional schools collaborated with the existing teams for the 2000 competition; these two teams participated in the competition, but they were not eligible for the competition awards.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".