MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W649978907

WINTER MAINTENANCE IN VAUGHAN : IMPROVING OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATION THROUGH AN AVL SYSTEM

2004· article· en· W649978907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Belcher Anthony

Bibliographic record

VenueTHE APWA REPORTER · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemAutomatic vehicle locationThe InternetTransport engineeringTracking systemFleet managementInternet accessSoftwareManagement systemTelecommunicationsVehicle tracking systemInformation systemService (business)Computer scienceEngineeringComputer securityWorld Wide WebOperations managementOperating systemBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article relates the experiences of the City of Vaughan, Ontario, in using an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system with Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to manage its winter maintenance operations. It first reviews the three components that comprise an AVL system: vehicle hardware, communication system, and system software. The article next discusses the monitoring system which allows vehicles to be tracked through the Internet and can be tailored to the viewing capabilities of the different users of the system. A snow call center was also created to accommodate users without access to the Internet. The article also focuses on how the tracking system allows staff to determine if minimum maintenance standards and levels of service were being maintained. In addition, the article describes how the system enabled integrating the computerized salt spreaders with the system, thus providing information to meet the requirements of government- mandated road salt management plans.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTHE APWA REPORTERSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207