MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280649579 · doi:10.1155/2022/1876579

Energy Consumption Analysis of High-Speed Trains under Real Vehicle Test Conditions

2022· article· en· W4280649579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qing Zhang, Hongjun Yu, Xin Su, Yao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Systems and Energy Efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy consumptionTrainAutomotive engineeringTraction (geology)Energy (signal processing)EngineeringTotal energyElectric energy consumptionSimulationComputer scienceElectric energyMechanical engineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study collected statistics on the actual operation of national railway electric multiple units (EMUs) and compared the energy consumption of different EMU models at different speed levels. An important method for studying the relationship between speed and energy consumption of EMUs has been constructed based on group method of data handling to reflect how the energy consumption of different EMU models changes with speed. The energy consumption of CRH2 and CRH380A EMUs on flat and sloping lines was compared. Moreover, the start-up energy consumption of CRH2 and CRH380A EMUs was compared. The effect of the number of stops of CRH2 and CRH3 EMUs on energy consumption was analyzed. Furthermore, an idea for improving the general expression and calculation methods of traction energy consumption of EMUs was proposed. Finally, suggestions on the construction of a traction energy consumption information system were provided, and the selection of different high-speed EMU models and the reasonable determination of the operating speed were discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicRailway Systems and Energy EfficiencyFrench-language works237,207