MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246140941

STATE-OF-THE-ART FIXED AUTOMATED SPRAY TECHNOLOGY

2004· article· en· W2246140941 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J R Waldman

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research E-Circular · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingSoftware deploymentController (irrigation)Computer scienceBridge (graph theory)Environmental scienceNozzleAutomotive engineeringSimulationEngineeringMeteorologyMechanical engineeringOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applying anti-icing chemical at the optimum time is critical for an effective anti-icing program. The timing of anti-icing chemical applications is especially critical for bridge structures, where icing can occur in advance of icing on normal pavements. Additionally, other highway characteristics such as ramps and steep grades can require different treatment strategies as compared to anti-icing treatments for normal pavements. Advances in technology have given highway operators a new tool to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their anti-icing program. This tool is the fixed automated spray technology (FAST) system. The FAST system is a permanent installation of a pump, a tank, nozzles, and a controller that dispenses anti-icing chemicals directly on a predetermined area of pavement. These systems can initiate chemical applications either on manual command or be integrated with a road weather information system (RWIS) to operate automatically based on detected highway conditions. The FAST system permits timely, localized, and repeated anti-icing treatments with the optimum amount of anti-icing chemicals and without the deployment of typical winter maintenance equipment and personnel. FAST systems are now in use in more than 20 U.S. states and in several locations in Canada.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research E-CircularSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207