MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W279968881 · doi:10.1504/ijvd.1992.061727

FIELD TESTING AND VALIDATION OF DIRECTIONAL DYNAMICS MODEL OF A TANK TRUCK

2014· article· en· W279968881 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

VenueInternational Journal of Vehicle Design · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlosh dynamicsTruckEngineeringVehicle dynamicsAxleField (mathematics)Computational fluid dynamicsPlane (geometry)SimulationMarine engineeringStructural engineeringAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two–axle vehicle, equipped with a semi–transparent cylindrical tank, is fabricated and instrumented to determine the dynamics of sloshing cargo and its effects on directional response of the vehicle. The directional dynamics of a partially filled tank truck is investigated via computer simulation of a three–dimensional vehicle model incorporating a quasi–dynamic roll plane model of the tank. Field tests are performed for typical lane change and turning manoeuvres, and the corresponding directional response data are compared to the computer simulation results to validate the analytical model. The study concludes that the results obtained from the analytical vehicle model, incorporating quasi–dynamic fluid analysis, correlate well with the field measured data for different fill levels, vehicle speeds, and directional manoeuvres. Motion of the fluid–free surface and the corresponding lateral load transfer, attained via computer simulation, are further compared to those established from the field measured data to conclude that a quasi–dynamic analytical model can accurately predict the fluid slosh loads.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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