MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278305182 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-3192

Structured Comparative Testing for Major Brake Components, a New and Innovative Process by the US Army National Automotive Center (NAC) and Industry Partners

2006· article· en· W2278305182 on OpenAlexaff
Leo P. Miller, Carlos Agudelo

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsAutomotive industryBrakeManufacturing engineeringCenter (category theory)Process (computing)Automotive engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceOperating systemAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The US military has one of the largest and most varied vehicle fleets in the world, with a broad range of vehicle weights and types. These vehicle brake systems include disc, drum, wet plate, and wet band using mechanical, hydraulic, and air actuation systems. Military and commercial fleets share many challenges, most of which are driven by Federal laws, regulations, and policies.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The objective of the project presented by this paper is to provide a decision-making tool so that the responsible engineering authority can make a reasoned decision on the acceptability of alternative products and sources through a formal standardized process. The paper presents the background, different test plans, test procedures, and the main workflow for 1) potential offerors interested in pursuing a brake component (secondary item) supply contract with the US Military, and 2) research/development of alternative systems.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The product of the effort is the development of the “ATPD 2354” spec and its pre-planned replacement, a DODISS-approved Federal Test Standard (FTS) in MIL-STD-962 format.</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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicHigh Temperature Alloys and CreepFrench-language works237,207