MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076726851 · doi:10.1080/23248378.2013.878295

Aerodynamic prediction tools for high-speed trains

2014· article· en· W2076726851 on OpenAlex
Astrid H. Herbst, Tomas W. Muld, Gunilla Efraimsson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rail Transportation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
FundersTrafikverketTechnische Universität BerlinNational Science Council
KeywordsTrainAerodynamicsComputer scienceDeckAerodynamic dragDragSimulationFlow (mathematics)Aerospace engineeringAutomotive engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With high-speed trains, the need for efficient and accurate aerodynamic prediction tools increases, since the influence of the aerodynamics on the overall train performance raises. New requirements on slipstream velocities and head pressure pulse in the revised Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) for train speeds higher than 190 km/h are more challenging to fulfil for wide-body trains, like the Green train concept vehicle Regina 250, as well as higher trains, like double-deck trains. In this paper, we give an overview of the results from a project within the Green train programme, where the objective was to increase the knowledge on slipstream air flow of wide body trains at high speeds, to understand the implications of the new requirements on the front shape and to develop a prediction methodology in order to take this into account early in the design cycle. In addition, the front design was in parallel optimized with respect to head pressure pulse and drag.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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