MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W644149291

SISTEMA AUTOMATIZADO PARA BANCO DE PRUEBA DE LOCOMOTORAS (BPLW)

2002· article· es· W644149291 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linares Beltrán, L Soler Fabra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEnergy
TopicEnvironmental and Ecological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEngineeringArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Se explica el funcionamiento del Sistema BPLW disenado para los Bancos de Prueba de Locomotoras canadienses MLW, que automatiza el proceso de pruebas y mediciones en los mantenimientos y/o reparaciones. Se describe la continuidad del proceso de automatizacion del Banco de Pruebas de Locomotoras de los talleres de ferrocarriles Jose Ramirez Casamayor. Se ha realizado el diseno sobre Windows y Visual C++, por lo que presenta facilidades visuales y de dialogo que simplifican las tareas del operador. Resumen en ingles: The present article explaind the System BPLW designed for the Banks os Test of Canadian Locomotives MLW that automates the process of tests and measurement of their parameters as part of the maintenance and/or repairs, offering the option of measuring in an independent way the aggregates of the Diesel Generator of other locomotives. It is possible to carry cut the tests of Adjustment, Settling and Consumption of Fuel, in an assisted way, since it goes indicating to the operator the actions to take. In cash operation. great utility for the operatiors of Banks of Tets, since it decrease in a considerable wayt time of execution of the tests, the human errors and time in the detection of technical problems of all type; with what an important increment is obtained in the quality of the tests. (A).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.014

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental and Ecological StudiesFrench-language works237,207