MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332521906 · doi:10.1061/9780784479797.022

APM and Monorail for Urban Applications

2016· article· en· W2332521906 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Contact Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonorailComputer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated people mover (APM) systems have been widely used as reliable passenger transport in airports around the world. They provide efficient services between airport terminals and other facilities. Monorails are widely known as transport solutions for large amusement parks because of their excellent aesthetic appeal. However, both APMs and monorails are also very suitable for urban applications. Their unique features, such as small curve radii and low noise levels, make them excellent transit solutions for urban settings, especially for some cities that have unique challenges along the alignments. This paper provides an overview of the urban applications of APMs and monorails. It talks about the features and advantages that make monorails and APMs ideal for some urban applications. It discusses why cities should consider monorails and APMs as a part of their urban transportation solutions. This paper also discusses recent market trends in terms of application of monorails and APMs in urban settings using some examples.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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