MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W606419735

SLIPPERY WHEN WET

2004· article· en· W606419735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T Mahon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational airport review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAsphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunwayAviationEngineeringAeronauticsAutomotive engineeringTransport engineeringFriction coefficientComputer scienceAerospace engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the importance of airport runway friction testing. Since the technical challenges of ensuring satisfactory braking characteristics for aircraft in all runway conditions are significant, several friction testing research programs have been developed. One program, jointly sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and Transport Canada, has worked to develop a consistent friction scale for similar runway conditions in differing environments and to establish reliable correlation between ground vehicle friction measurements and the braking performance of aircraft. The demand for full-width runway testing has increased as data has become easier to retrieve, transmit and analyze electronically. Manufacturers are responding to this need for more accurate and more plentiful data by creating a new generation of fiction testers to provide airport operators with better facilities to record, interpret and act upon runway friction coefficient data.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.017

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational airport reviewSame topicAsphalt Pavement Performance EvaluationFrench-language works237,207