MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W622878029

MANAGING A MOVING TARGET : RAILROAD MECHANICAL, PURCHASING MANAGERS SEEK WAYS TO CONTAIN FUEL COSTS

2004· article· en· W622878029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A Claypool

Bibliographic record

VenueProgressive railroading · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicTransport and Economic Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGallon (US)PurchasingLiberian dollarFuel efficiencyFuel taxFleet managementDiesel fuelTruckTransport engineeringEngineeringFinanceBusinessOperations managementAutomotive engineeringWaste managementRevenue
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuel savings can create huge economies for railroads, which are increasingly aggressive as diesel prices continue to rise. For every dollar added to a barrel of fuel, it costs a railroad the size of Canadian Pacific $10 million off the bottom line. Railroad mechanical, transportation and financial planners are taking steps to cut fuel use. They include stop/start devices on locomotives, enforcing stricter operating rules, and locking in lower, fixed fuel prices. Burlington Northern recently instituted a cross-departmental fuel conservation team to discuss, critique and share ideas on fuel conservation practices and use. They expect to achieve a 2% increase in efficiency. For every penny per gallon it saves on fuel, the railroad saves $13 million annually. This article describes shutdown/startup systems used to cut fuel used during idling. Another approach is to analyze operating practices for more efficient fuel use. Also, replacing locomotive fleets with newer, more efficient models can cut costs. Hedging fuel can lock in supplies at predictable prices, enabling better planning.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.008

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgressive railroadingSame topicTransport and Economic PoliciesFrench-language works237,207