MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286287075

Are maintenance practices for railroad tracks effective

2005· article· en· W2286287075 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason R. W. Merrick, Refik Soyer, Thomas A. Mazzuchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariateTrack (disk drive)Poisson distributionGrindingEconometricsTransport engineeringEngineeringScale (ratio)Set (abstract data type)Poisson regressionComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeographyMechanical engineeringCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Association of American Railroads wished to determine the effect of a maintenance practice known as grinding on the occurrence of rail fatigue defects and on the subsequent total traffic usage before a track must be replaced. Because a designed experiment was not practical, an analysis of historical data from the Canadian Northern Railroad is presented. In the analysis, certain covariate data are available, specifically the amount of grinding and some physical characteristics of the rail; other important covariate data are not available, however. A model for the number of defects as a function of traffic usage is developed based on a modulated Poisson point process. The model incorporates the effect of the available covariates and a mixture of Dirichlet processes set-up for the scale parameters of the individual rail sections that allows an assessment of the overall effect of the unavailable covariates. The model is then used to determine an optimal replacement period for a whole rail track. The analysis demonstrates that grinding reduces the expected number of defects and increases the optimal replacement interval.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207