MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1565581676 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-3405

A Survey of American and Canadian Consumer Experience - The Performance of Late Model Year Vehicles Operating on Gasoline With and Without the Gasoline Fuel Additive MMT®

2006· article· en· W1565581676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph W. Roos, Michael W. Meffert, Lawrence J. Cunningham, Alan R. Hotchkiss, Martin J. Openshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasolineAutomotive engineeringBusinessWaste managementEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a three city survey designed to determine the relative frequency of illumination of vehicle on-board diagnostic (OBD) malfunction indicator lights (MIL) on 2001 and later model year vehicles. The survey was conducted in a Canadian market, Regina, and two U.S. markets, Minneapolis and Denver, to assess claims that the presence of methycyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT®) in gasoline causes the failure of technology necessary to meet stringent Tier 2 emission standards applicable in North America. The results of the survey do not support the claim that MMT® is incompatible with the effective functioning of the advanced vehicle emission technology necessary to meet Tier 2 emission standards. The results substantiate that the performance of the most advanced vehicles operating on gasoline containing MMT® is not materially different from the performance of comparable vehicles operating on gasoline that does not contain MMT®.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series→Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→