Comparative Testing for Aftermarket (Secondary Item) Truck Brake Components by the US Army and Industry Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="htmlview paragraph">Military and commercial fleets share many challenges, most of which are driven by Federal laws, regulations, and policies.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The US military has one of the largest and most varied wheeled vehicle fleets in the world with a broad range of vehicle weights and types, most over 10,000 lbs GVW. These vehicle brake systems include disc and drum, using mechanical, hydraulic, and air actuation systems.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The US military buys vehicle systems only, not the individual components or subsystems other than for spare parts (a.k.a. Secondary Items). In addition, brake shoes are bought as assembled units only and not as separate brake blocks or lining.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The objective of the Government project presented in this paper was to provide a decision-making tool so that the responsible engineering authority could make a reasoned decision on the acceptability of alternative spare parts and sources through a Government-approved standardized off-vehicle testing process. Subject 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, 2) comparative testing for non-standard vehicle configurations (overloaded), and 3) research and development (R&amp;D) of alternative systems.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">The output of the Government's effort was the development of the “ATPD 2354” specification 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".