MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Railway Track Intervention Planning: Accounting for Component Interactions and Evolving Failure Risks

2025· article· en· W4410559839 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)Track (disk drive)Intervention (counseling)Risk analysis (engineering)BusinessComputer scienceAccountingPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This manuscript proposes a methodology to leverage digitalisation to efficiently generate an overview of required condition-based railway track interventions, possession windows, and expected costs for railway networks at the beginning of the intervention planning process. The consistent and efficient generation of such an overview not only helps track managers in their decision-making but also facilitates the discussion among other decision-makers in later phases of the track intervention planning process, including line planners, capacity managers, and project managers. The methodology uses data of different levels of detail, discrete state modelling for uncertain deterioration of components, and component-level intervention strategies. It dynamically updates the condition estimates of components by capturing the interaction between deteriorating components using Bayesian filters. It also estimates the risks associated with different types of potential service losses that may occur due to sudden events using fault trees as a function of time and the condition of components. An implementation of the methodology is conducted for a 25 km regional railway network in Switzerland. The results suggest that the methodology has the potential to help track managers early in the intervention planning process. In addition, it is argued that the methodology will lead to improvements in the efficiency of the planning process, improvements in the scheduling of preventive interventions, and the reduction in corrective intervention costs upon the implementation in a digital environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.257 · 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