MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081791544 · doi:10.1061/9780784483176.017

Qualification of Track Parameters Based on a Review of Previous Studies

2020· review· en· W3081791544 on OpenAlexaff
Nazmul Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2020 · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Deflection (physics)Computer scienceLimitingReliability engineeringRange (aeronautics)EngineeringIndustrial engineeringMechanical engineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to qualify track parameters systematically over a wide range of categories. The characteristic length is strongly related to all track parameters including deflection. These relations and interrelations among track parameters are used to qualify all other track parameters. As such, the characteristic length is qualified by previous studies, a literature review, and analysis. The qualification of other track parameters is based on the qualification of the characteristic length. The track deflection is defined with reference to the characteristic length and is formulated and qualified as the minimum, optimum, and limiting deflections. The qualification would help design engineers to apply more accurate track parameter values in a consistent manner during the design phase, as well as help field engineers evaluate the track foundation condition and track performance in making maintenance decisions. In addition, the qualification work would aid engineers in judging or inferring the requirements of some track materials. The qualification work is validated against current qualifications and literature.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Transportation and Development 2020Same topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207