Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initial support and tie foundation problems of a railroad track built in 1974 to carry axle loads 21% greater than presently (1998) permitted under interchange laws at a speed of 88 km/h are presented. Some of the concerns related to and affecting the final rehabilitation that resulted in a final satisfactory performance are documented. The foundation engineer's interest is directed to the ballast, the tie, and to a lesser extent the rail's behaviour. Cobble-sized (75-150 mm) river gravel was used as the source for the ballast in the rehabilitation. The ballast's satisfactory performance has permitted the establishment of guidelines for future use of this type source of material where suitable quarried rock is not available. The railroad's satisfactory performance after rehabilitation has proven that the design concepts involving 36 t (40 tons) axle loads operating on 60 kg/m (119 lb/yd) continuously welded rail, concrete ties, and ballast manufactured by crushing from a river aggregate were achievable.Key words: railway track, concrete ties, ballast aggregate, aggregate, crushed face, rail, 36 t (40 tons) axle loads.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".