MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541532821 · doi:10.17226/14458

Review of Canadian Experience with the Regulation of Large Commercial Motor Vehicles

2010· book· en· W1541532821 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Academies Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransport Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsBusinessPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report documents the process used in Canada to harmonize heavy truck size and weight regulations across the country and provides insights on how lessons learned from the Canadian experience might be applied in a U.S. context. It will provide a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion of truck size and weight regulation in the United States. The authors include a summary of the regulatory framework for truck size and weight regulation in the United states and the efforts that have been made over time to achieve greater uniformity. This report will be of interest to truck size and weight regulators in the United States, who face similar jurisdictional challenges to develop and implement regulations that permit common configurations of heavy trucks that can operate legally across the country without compromising safety concerns or creating excessive impacts on road pavement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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