May 2005 Working Group Meeting on Heavy Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag: Presentation, Summary of Comments and Conclusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Working Group Meeting on Heavy Vehicle Aerodynamic Drag was held at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California on May 12th and 13th of 2005. The purpose of the first day's meeting, May 12th, was to provide a summary of achievements, discuss issues, present a general overview of future plans, and to offer a forum for dialogue with the Department of Energy (DOE) and representatives from industry, universities, and research and development organizations performing work related to heavy vehicle aerodynamics. This first meeting day was open to participants from industry and research organizations from both the US and Canada. The second day, May 13th, was attended only by representatives from the 9 organizations that form the DOE Consortium effort and their government sponsors. The purpose of the second day's meeting was to further discuss fiscal year 2005's activities, any further specific pressing issues, identify individual action items, and provide an overview of plans for fiscal year 2006. Based on discussions at the Meeting, the existing project goals remain unchanged and enhancing interactions with fleet owners and operators was emphasized: (1) Perform heavy vehicle computations and experiments, (2) Validate computations using experimental data, (3) Provide design guidance and insight into flow phenomena from experiments and computations, and (4) Investigate aero devices with emphasis on collaborative efforts with fleet owners and operators.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".