Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper are descriptions of vertical, parallel and linear docking trains.Their advantages and consequences are given, and a simple comparison between them is in a table.A few words are also devoted to a comparison of traditional trains with docking trains.Passengers like to reach their goal in a short time.Trains might have a high top speed and we strive to get them even higher.However, what counts is a high average speed, for the traveller.If station distance is short, then the average speed becomes comparatively low.The conflict between many served stations, short travel time and high average speed can be solved with another approach than the traditional.The idea of docking between a train, that runs continuously, and shuttles/railcars that provide the transport between the train and the stations is since long well known.We can call them docking trains.They genially solve the conflict between short travel time and the number of stations served.All persons travel nonstop from start to goal and thus average speed is high.All trains serve all stations and we can have many stations.Linear docking using the Jo-Jo Concept seams to be preferable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".