Options for Hauling Fully Loaded ISO Containers in the United States
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Civil engineers plan, design, manage, and guide investments in surface transportation. Truck weight limits are inextricably linked to the consideration of pavements, bridges, safety, asset management, sustainability, jobs, and economic productivity. The U.S. 36.3 t cap for gross vehicle weight (GVW), and the Federal Bridge Formula B (FBF B) constrain truck movement of 32.5 t full ISO (International Organization for Standardization) containers. This study identifies the options—and associated implications—for trucks to transport full containers notwithstanding FBF B and the cap. We conducted a national investigation of truck weight regulations across 50 states to identify options, with 28 cases involving telephone interviews. Results show the options are complex, vary by state, result in a patchwork of routes, and include: (1) nondivisible permits, (2) special haul routes, (3) grandfather rights, (4) state roads, (5) tare reduction, and (6) operation outside formal regulations. Containerships, railroads, ports, and highways of U.S. trading partners each accommodate full containers. Conditions identified in this paper can result in underutilization of the productivity and efficiency benefits afforded by international standardization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it