Threshold Radius of a Ballasted CWR Curved Track: Curve Classification
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
Different codes and railways specify different maximum curvatures for their track systems. The curve-negotiating capability of the vehicle dictates the absolute minimum radius used on a track system; other factors may also be considered to decide the minimum radius. In this paper, a minimum radius labeled as the threshold radius is determined when a ballasted, continuously welded curved track would not move under the action of thermal load in an unladen track. Thus, the curve with the threshold or flatter radius would not require hot-weather or cold-weather patrolling or other measures to augment the lateral strength of the track. A formula is derived in this paper to determine the threshold value: the temperature limits at which hot-weather or cold-weather patrolling is to be enforced if the radius happens to be sharper than the threshold radius. Formulas are also used to determine the desirable temperature range for tamping. The paper also presents a review and analysis of the current literature to be able to choose a practical value for lateral resistance of monoblock concrete ties; it also presents a literature review on recently developed forms of concrete ties. A typical application is then presented to demonstrate the utility of the formulas. Finally, on the basis of the formulation and analyses, curves are then classified into three groups based on a maintenance point of view—Group I (least desirable), Group II (desirable), and Group III (most desirable). The research presented here will be useful for both design and maintenance engineers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it