Quantifying the Impact of Subgrade Stiffness on Track Quality and the Development of Geometry Defects
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
This paper presents the quantification of the impact of subgrade stiffness on the prevalence of track geometry defects and degradation of track quality indices (TQIs). The data included in this study come from two high-traffic subdivisions [>50 million gross tonnes (MGT)/year] in Canada with a total length of 800 km and consist of vertical track deflection (VTD) measurements and 3 years of track geometry measurements. The VTD measurements were used to derive two indices that represent the magnitude and variability of the subgrade stiffness. An analysis of the data shows that the locations at which defects occur correspond to locations with low modulus (higher VTD) and high variability of track modulus. A similar correlation is shown with track roughness represented by a TQI. However, the correlation with the spectrum of TQI calculated was found to be poor. This was attributed to maintenance activities carried out to improve track conditions. The correlation with the TQI greatly improved when arbitrary thresholds were applied and TQI values above this were treated as geometry defects. These results show that the locations that have a low modulus and high variability in the modulus are those that are the most difficult to maintain and at which maintenance is not always able to keep up with the degradation of track geometry. Thus, VTD measurements evaluate the underlying causes that result in the degradation of track conditions and allow for the identification of sections where poor track conditions are most likely to develop.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it