MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884877262 · doi:10.1115/1.2013-jul-3

High Standards

2013· article· en· W2884877262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean Thilmany

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElevator Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElevatorEngineeringConsistency (knowledge bases)Work (physics)AeronauticsStatement (logic)TowerCode (set theory)Safety standardsTurbineSoftwareMechanical engineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringLawReliability engineeringSet (abstract data type)Structural engineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses recent updates to standard codes for elevator safety and operation. This article gives a look at today’s ASME A17.1-2010/CSA B44-10, Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators. The standard jointly developed by ASME and the Canadian Standards Association shows how the original 1921 safety code has developed through the years. It now includes requirements for escalators and moving walkways as well as software and hardware requirements that did not exist 90 years ago. A group of organizations spearheaded by ASME held a symposium in December 2010 to look into elevator use during high-rise evacuations, which was a continuation of the earlier work started after 2001. Committee members spoke to experts on human factors and human conditioning when writing the requirements. The new provisions may better serve designers, manufacturers, contractors, and operators of wind turbine tower elevators by providing added confidence and consistency in the design and operation of such equipment, according to an ASME statement.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2900.276

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical EngineeringSame topicElevator Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207