MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891099412 · doi:10.1177/0954409718800579

Modelling and simulation of the train brake system in low adhesion conditions

2018· article· en· W2891099412 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive engineeringBrakeTrainBraking systemMATLABEngineeringComputer scienceSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the current version of the Low Adhesion Braking Dynamic Optimisation for Rolling Stock (LABRADOR) simulation tool that can predict the train brake system performance and support decision-making in the design and optimisation of the braking system including wheel slide protection, sanders and the blending and control of friction and dynamic brakes in low adhesion conditions. The model has been developed in MATLAB/Simulink and is intended to mimic the braking performance of both older and newer generations of multiple unit passenger trains. LABRADOR models have been initially validated by comparing simulation results for a single car train (Class 153) and two-car train (Class 158) in dry conditions with experimental tests, for tare and crush laden vehicles. This project is supported by RSSB and a technical steering group composed of railway braking experts, suppliers and train operators and manufacturers.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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