MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053324835 · doi:10.1139/l10-015

Effective placement of dangerous goods cars in rail yard marshaling operation

2010· article· en· W2053324835 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Morteza Bagheri, F. Frank Saccomanno, Liping Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersIran University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of WaterlooTransport Canada
KeywordsMarshallingDerailmentHeuristicInteger programmingProcess (computing)Track (disk drive)Transport engineeringEngineeringTrainYardComputer scienceContainer (type theory)Operations researchReliability engineeringArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Train derailments are important safety issues, and they become even more critical when dangerous goods (DG) are involved. This paper is concerned with mitigating derailment risk through improved operational strategies, with a specific focus on DG marshalling practices in the train-assembly process. A new modelling framework is proposed to investigate how the position of DG railway cars affects their chances of being involved in a derailment as the train travels over a given track segment. The underlying research problem can be formulated as a linear integer programming technique. However, since solving this formulation is computationally intractable, a heuristic method has been developed based on a genetic algorithm that gives a near-optimum solution. The proposed model is applied to a hypothetical rail corridor to demonstrate how effective marshalling of DG along a train can reduce overall derailment risks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207