MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268015699 · doi:10.5558/tfc2015-028

New development of a remotely operated falling wedge

2015· article· en· W2268015699 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
C. Kevin Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWorkSafeBC
KeywordsFalling (accident)Wedge (geometry)TorqueTree (set theory)Marine engineeringComputer scienceSimulationAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of projects has developed an alternate cutting pattern that prevents a tree from moving while the faller is cutting at the base and a tool to initiate falling once the faller is in the clear. This specific project developed a second prototype of a remotely operated wedge for use when manually falling trees. The second prototype reduced the friction in the drive train and increased the mechanical advantage, and this increased the separation force produced for a given input torque by a multiple of approximately four, depending on the magnitude of the input torque. In this project, success means the tree did not begin to displace until the remotely operated wedge was inserted and activated. When using the second prototype and permitting the faller to vary the cutting pattern depending on tree imbalance, the success rate was increased from 91% when using the first prototype to 98%. Further testing is required in larger timber and with other fallers to determine if the high success rate can be maintained in these conditions.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207