MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W605725848 · doi:10.21949/1526923

Control of Wheel/Rail Noise and Vibration

2013· article· en· W605725848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul J. Remington, N R Dixon, L.G. Kurzweil, Christopher W. Menge

Bibliographic record

VenueROSA P · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreadNoise (video)Automotive engineeringGrindNoise controlEngineeringStructural engineeringGrindingVibrationStiffnessSurface finishMechanical engineeringNoise reductionAcousticsComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analytical model of the generation of wheel/rail noise has been developed and validated through an extensive series of field tests carried out at the Transportation Test Center using the State of the Art Car. A sensitivity analysis has been performed using the analytical model. That analysis showed that wheel/rail noise is relatively insensitive to changes in most system parameter values, except wheel and rail roughness, contact area and contact stiffness. The surface finish produced by most wheel truing and rail grinding machines has been measured. A belt grinder used by the Toronto Transit Commission for wheel truing and a rail grinding block car used by the Chicago Transit Authority to grind rails were found to produce the quietest surface finishes giving an estimated 12 dBA of noise reduction when compared with typical rapid transit wheels and rails in revenue service. A scale model of a new concept wheel employing a resilient tread has been built and tested. Noise reductions of up to 8 dBA were achieved with tread stresses in the manageable range.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueROSA PSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207