Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discuses the case of Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc which involved a problem unique to the construction industry in colder climates. In order to harden properly, concrete must be kept from freezing before it sets up. Mr. Bruckelmyer knew about this problem and came up with a system for prethawing large areas of frozen ground so that concrete could be poured all winter all. His solution was to lay out a serpentine pattern of hoses over the frozen ground and then pass hot water or antifreeze through the hoses to heat the ground below. The hoses were covered with a thermal blanket so that thawing rates of a foot per day could be achieved. Bruckelmyer obtained two U.S. patents and proceeded to sign up licensees to practice his invention. One of those licensees, Ground Heaters, Inc., subsequently canceled its license but kept on practicing the technology. Bruckelmyer responded by bringing suit for patent infringement. As Ground Heaters looked for prior art to knock out Bruckelmyer's patents, it found an old Canadian patent that showed the use of hot water hoses to heat concrete forms but not to heat the ground. In the Canadian file were two additional figures that had been included in the original application but were canceled during prosecution and those not part of the issued patent. Those figures showed using a hose system to thaw frozen ground, exactly what Bruckelmyer has patented. CAFC struggle with the issue and in the end ruled in Ground Heater's favor and found that the two old Canadian drawings were prior art and thus Brucklmyer's patent was invalid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.166 | 0.072 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".