MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996028556 · doi:10.13031/2013.41330

ROPS Deficiency of Gray-Market Tractors

2012· article· en· W1996028556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melvin L. Myers, Mark A. Purschwitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Safety and Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Kentucky
KeywordsTractorGray (unit)Grey marketRollover (web design)BusinessEngineeringEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many used tractors that are imported from Japan are adding to the current national inventory in the U.S. and Canada of farm tractors that lack a rollover protective structure (ROPS). Gray-market tractors are built for use by the manufacturer for a certain country but are imported against the manufacture's wishes to a second country for use there, usually as a used tractor. Gray-market tractors may lack ROPS and seatbelts, depending on the date of manufacturer. The objective of this investigation is to describe the gray market for tractors imported from Japan into the U.S. and the policy implications regarding the hazards associated with these imports. Operator manuals and warning labels are typically not written in English. Foreign manufacturers that market tractors in the U.S. have established a variety of disincentives for the importation of gray-market tractors, including issuing warnings, not servicing or providing parts for these tractors, and banning their importation through actions by the U.S. International Trade Commission. Nonetheless, a U.S. market has developed that imports and provides services and parts for gray-market tractors, and some companies provide certified ROPS on the tractors that they sell. A product safety perspective and related policies are presented as an approach to ensuring that these imports are equipped with ROPS and seatbelts.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Safety and HealthSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207