MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036018707 · doi:10.3390/vibration3020012

Continuous Evaluation of Track Modulus from a Moving Railcar Using ANN-Based Techniques

2020· article· en· W3036018707 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

VenueVibration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Deflection (physics)StiffnessArtificial neural networkModulusFinite element methodStructural engineeringComputer scienceSimulationAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceOpticsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Track foundation stiffness (also referred as the track modulus) is one of the main parameters that affect the track performance, and thus, quantifying its magnitudes and variations along the track is widely accepted as a method for evaluating the track condition. In recent decades, the train-mounted vertical track deflection measurement system developed at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (known as the MRail system) appears as a promising tool to assess track structures over long distances. Numerical methods with different levels of complexity have been proposed to simulate the MRail deflection measurements. These simulations facilitated the investigation and quantification of the relationship between the vertical deflections and the track modulus. In our previous study, finite element models (FEMs) with a stochastically varying track modulus were used for the simulation of the deflection measurements, and the relationships between the statistical properties of the track modulus and deflections were quantified over different track section lengths using curve-fitting approaches. The shortcoming is that decreasing the track section length resulted in a lower accuracy of estimations. In this study, the datasets from the same FEMs are used for the investigations, and the relationship between the measured deflection and track modulus averages and standard deviations are quantified using artificial neural networks (ANNs). Different approaches available for training the ANNs using FEM datasets are discussed. It is shown that the estimation accuracy can be significantly increased by using ANNs, especially when the estimations of track modulus and its variations are required over short track section lengths, ANNs result in more accurate estimations compared to the use of equations from curve-fitting approaches. Results also show that ANNs are effective for the estimations of track modulus even when the noisy datasets are used for training the ANNs.

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 score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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