MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W158475136

Friction and Prediction

2007· article· en· W158475136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J B Croll, Angelo Boccanfuso

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational airport review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunwaySnowFrost (temperature)Environmental scienceEngineeringMeteorologyAeronauticsMarine engineeringForensic engineeringGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Joint Winter Runway Friction Measurement Program (JWRFMP) is the focus of this article. An international initiative comprised of more than 30 organizations in 12 countries – including the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, and Japan – JWRFMP extensively tests and measures aircraft performance in terms of braking and runway friction. Because of the critical importance of accurate information about runway and weather conditions, which varies between airports and between countries, JWRFMP has been formed to provide test data that allows for these differences. Through testing, JWRFMP has discovered that braking performance is well correlated with friction, as measured by a decelerometer-type device used in conjunction with winter contaminated runway surface tests. Decelerometers are used only for measuring surfaces contaminated by ice, frost, wet ice, compacted or loose snow, and other phenomena seen during winter operations. The article also discusses the Canadian Runway Friction Index (CFRI), an average of readings taken by the decelerometer that is used to provide pilots with meaningful information about the effect a contaminant has on reducing runway surface friction. Recommended landing distances are also discussed. Derived from models based on CFRI measurements, these development CRFI tables of recommended landing distances are provided here in tabular format.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational airport reviewSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207