MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411603198 · doi:10.1115/jrc2016-5821

Tank Car Top Fittings Protection: Evaluation of Derailment Failure Risks — A Conceptual Study

2016· article· en· W2411603198 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
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDerailmentEngineeringFinite element methodRigidity (electromagnetism)Work (physics)Reliability engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringTrack (disk drive)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Top fittings devices on tank cars are subject to damage and failure under derailment conditions, potentially leading to the release of hazardous lading. This paper describes the conceptual development of an objective methodology for evaluating the risk of fittings protection failure and the potential reduction in that risk when mitigating strategies such as improved fittings protective structure are deployed. The methodology captures several key elements that affect fittings survival, including: the speed of derailment initiation, the impact velocity/force spectrum experienced by the fittings protective structure during the event, the strength/structural capacity of the protective structure, and the rigidity of the ground surface. Detailed finite element modeling efforts were employed to capture derailment dynamics and corresponding impact velocity spectra, as well as the strength of multiple protective designs. Future work, including validation, is planned to extend the concept into a detailed methodology.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.236 · 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