Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the authors discuss a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)-sponsored research program into the development of improved wheel and rail profiles, specifically focusing manipulations of standard wheel structure such as narrow and high-angled flanges and, for rails, the researchers produced the templates H1, H2, contact point gauge (CPG), the contact point central (CPC), and the contact point field (CPF). Using over 4,400 measured specific wheel profiles, researchers evaluated wheels from nine U.S. and Canadian commuter agencies. Researchers produced a “worn-wheel” design that uses averages of moderately worn wheels to calculate the profile. The wheel design produced was evaluated with conformality analysis that assesses wear, contact stress, conicity, and quasi-static curving. The authors stress that this wheel design and its wear and climb depend on the rail it will be used in conjunction with and that it may not be compatible with some rails. The rails designed by this project were designed to reduce as much tread wear, hollowing, and poor wheel/rail performance as possible, as analysis of the wheel/rail profile demonstrated good control of contact stress and proper conicity. The authors close with a final warning on the applicability of the proposed templates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".