MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970204500 · doi:10.1115/jrc2009-63042

Unsafe Hunting of Freight Rail Cars

2009· article· en· W1970204500 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Huang, Yan Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckTrack (disk drive)Transport engineeringParametric statisticsEngineeringAutomotive engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hunting of rail vehicles refers to self-excited oscillation of truck and carbody. This dynamic instability is due to the conicity of the wheels, the wheel/rail creep forces and the action of the suspensions. Hunting increases wheel/rail wear, causes damage to sensitive lading and in extreme cases can throw the track out of geometry. Furthermore, severe hunting can create unsafe operating conditions that lead to derailments. Although it is widely recognized that truck hunting is not a good thing, it is a fact that many thousands of trucks do hunt on any given day but the number of derailments from hunting are few. So when is the hunting unsafe? Database and parametric studies of unsafe hunting are presented in this paper. The FRA database was used to study the hunting derailments by year, car type, track, speed, load condition, weather and temperature. Parametric studies of hunting and unsafe hunting of three-piece freight cars were conducted based on a large number of measured wheel profiles in combination with worn and new rail profiles. The vehicle, track and operational factors that have the major influence on unsafe hunting are analyzed and the conditions of unsafe hunting presented.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207