MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W649976771

WHAT CITIES LEARNED FROM WINTER 2005

2005· article· en· W649976771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R W Stidger

Bibliographic record

VenueBetter roads · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowWinter stormBridge (graph theory)Snow removalTransport engineeringClosed circuitGlobal Positioning SystemPlan (archaeology)StormTelecommunicationsMeteorologyControl (management)TruckAeronauticsComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on lessons learned from the winter of 2005 by Canadian and U.S. snow removal agencies and highlights of best practices recognized by the Federal Highway Administration. Aurora, Colorado uses an integrated display, messaging and communications device that lets operators text message each other and sends operational data to a central computer every 20 second. Control room managers can tell which routes have been plowed, whether the blade is up or down and other details. Charlotte, North Carolina uses its computerized traffic control system to re-time traffic lights during winter storms so that speeds are reduced five to 10 miles per hour. New York City has a fixed de-icing system for the Brooklyn Bridge which uses an automated system of barrier-mounted spray nozzles. They are monitored on closed-circuit TV. A combination of the City of Detroit and nearby counties created a joint winter maintenance plan that uses central computers, GPS sensors and other devices to coordinate snow and ice removal on a network of 15,000 street miles.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBetter roadsSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207