MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3119451227 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2019-0832

Hybrid rail track quality analysis using nonlinear dimension reduction technique with machine learning

2021· article· en· W3119451227 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ahmed Lasisi, Nii Attoh-Okine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack geometryTrack (disk drive)InefficiencyComputer scienceReduction (mathematics)Nonlinear systemQuality (philosophy)AlgorithmMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Track geometry parameters from rail track inspection are regulated within unique safety limits for different track classes. This study focuses on developing an index that combines safety and track quality because of the inefficiency of corrective maintenance activities between routine maintenance cycles when federal geometry limits are violated. This combination is achievable by summarizing multivariate track geometry parameters as an improvement to previous linear approaches to address the problem of inefficient track geometry maintenance programs. The use of nonlinear dimension reduction (T-stochastic neighbor embedding (T-SNE)) for hybrid track quality index development and the influence of time-based parameters on track quality is evaluated in this study. The results show that the probability of geometry defects is correlated with principal components, but T-SNE had the best prediction on train-test splits despite its poor performance on a blind validation set. The absence of an observable correlation between the track geometry and acceleration data requires further investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicRailway Engineering and Dynamics→French-language works237,207→