Evaporative Leakage from Gas Caps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">The AirCare<sup>®</sup> vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program is briefly described, together with the benefits which the program has already achieved. Additional benefits have been projected should the program include some more sophisticated assessment of evaporative emission control systems.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The feasibility of including such an assessment has been investigated, and a pilot study has been conducted in the regular inspection lanes. The operational and systems implications are described. The pilot study has resulted in an analysis of the incidence of faulty gas caps in the Lower Fraser Valley light-duty vehicle fleet, and how this relates to other vehicle characteristics such as vehicle make, model, model year, mileage etc.; and inspection data including emission control system components tampering and tailpipe emissions.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">Approximately 10% of all gas caps tested failed the pressure test, compared to the 1% that were failed by visual inspection. Correlation with other vehicle and inspection data showed that the likelihood of a leaking gas cap cannot be accurately predicted without a functional test.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The second part of this paper describes the operation, construction and testing results of a Gas Cap Leakage Rate Tester. The Leakage Rate Tester is capable of precisely measuring the mass flow rate out of a leaking gas cap at specific pressures. Over 170 fuel caps were tested on this unit and results separated into three groups; those that fail the EPA Pressure Test, those that passed, and anomalous Honda fuel caps. These results are analysed as a precursor to larger-scale fleet projections.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">This work has formed the first and second parts of a more comprehensive evaporative emissions assessment and modelling project.</div>
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".