MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105007923 · doi:10.1061/jtepbs.0000489

Estimations of Vertical Rail Bending Moments from Numerical Track Deflection Measurements Using Wavelet Analysis and Radial Basis Function Neural Networks

2020· article· en· W3105007923 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

VenueJournal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)WaveletBending momentTrack (disk drive)Structural engineeringArtificial neural networkComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceOpticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for estimating rail bending moments from relative vertical track deflection data measured by a train-mounted measurement system is presented in this paper. The novelty of the current study is that complete estimations of rail positive and negative bending moments from track deflection measurements are conducted by using a wavelet multiresolution analysis in conjunction with the radial basis function neural network considering the effects of varying track modulus. The simulation results show that the proposed framework can effectively employ vertical track deflections to estimate both maximum positive and negative bending moments in rails, with the average estimation error being 6.22% (i.e., 2.82 kNm). Moreover, the study confirms the capability of the train-mounted vertical track deflection measurement system (commercially known as MRail) in evaluating the rail bending moments over long distances.

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 score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.193 · 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