MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969929970 · doi:10.1155/2019/8560204

Impact of High-Altitude on Truck’s Climbing Speed: Case study in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Area in China

2019· article· en· W2969929970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lei Tian, Jinliang Xu, Xingli Jia, Leyu Wei, Lin Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsTruckAltitude (triangle)ClimbingEffects of high altitude on humansEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyAutomotive engineeringEngineeringGeographyMathematicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Truck’s climbing performance is an important consideration in traffic safety, efficiency, and highway geometric design. With the infrastructure development in high-altitude area in China, more attention needs to be paid on truck’s climbing performance in such area. In this article, truck’s climbing speed in high-altitude area was examined through field tests on different grade sections at different altitudes. Truck’s speed-distance curves were built at different altitudes and the impact of altitude on truck’s climbing speed was explored based on the test results. It was shown that, within the altitude range of 3000~5000m, altitude had an obvious influence on test truck’s decelerating and accelerating performance. Truck’s speed decreased faster on steep grades and increased slower on gentle grades with the increase of the altitude. Also, the stable speed that test truck could maintain on a certain grade was lower at a higher altitude. In addition, test truck’s theoretical speed-distance curves at the sea level were estimated through truck’s dynamic model. Compared with the theoretical crawl speed, a negative effect of altitude change (from 0 to the altitude above 3000 m) was found on truck’s climbing performance.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicVehicle Dynamics and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207