Evaluation of Coastdown Analysis Techniques to Determine Aerodynamic Drag of Heavy-Duty Vehicles
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">To investigate the feasibility of various aerodynamic test procedures for the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations for heavy-duty vehicles in the United States, the US Environmental Protection Agency conducted, through Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), coastdown testing of several heavy-duty tractors matched to a conventional 53-foot dry-van trailer. Three vehicle configurations were tested, two of which included common trailer drag-reduction technologies. Air speed was measured onboard the vehicle, and wind conditions were measured using a weather station placed along the road side. Tests were performed on a rural road in Texas. One vehicle configuration was tested over several days to evaluate day-to-day repeatability and the influence of changing wind conditions. Data on external sources of road forces, such as grade and speed dependence of tire rolling resistance, were collected separately and incorporated into the analysis. Various statistical and mathematical techniques are discussed in relation to challenges associated with using coastdown data to determine aerodynamic drag, including uncertainty, yaw angle determination, and asymmetry due to direction of travel.</div></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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it