MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207879264 · doi:10.1080/00423114.2021.1986223

On dynamic stability evaluation methods for long combination vehicles

2021· article· en· W3207879264 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueVehicle System Dynamics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTractorMeasure (data warehouse)Stability (learning theory)EngineeringAutomobile handlingAutomotive engineeringSoftwareVehicle dynamicsSimulationComputer scienceData miningMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamic stability of long combination vehicles (LCVs) is an important part of vehicle safety. An LCV, its driver and the road constitute a unique closed-loop dynamic system. Assessing the dynamic stability is difficult due to the complex interactions of driver-tractor-trailers-road. Rearward amplification (RA) is an effective performance measure of the dynamic stability; various methods are applied for evaluating the RA. However, the measures from different methods may differ significantly. What are the root causes for the disparity of evaluation results? This paper tackles the problem by investigating the typical methods for evaluating the measure of two LCVs, i.e. an A-train double and a B-train double. To this end, simulations of the LCVs are conducted using TruckSim software. The study discloses the main causes for the disparity of the measures from different methods, and recommends the effective approaches to the assessment of the RA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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