MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6941421915 · doi:10.13023/ktc.rr.2023.07

Investigation of Illegal Weigh Station Bypassing

2023· report· en· W6941421915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementLaw enforcementRevenueWarrantBest practiceState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study recommends best practices to curb illegal weigh station bypassing by commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Analysis of historical data collected by Kentucky State Police – Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (KSP-CVE) for 2017-2021 revealed that CMV drivers were charged with illegally bypassing weigh stations 2,616 times. Drivers were charged with an average of two other violations when cited for illegal bypassing — most often violations related to credentialing, vehicle safety, or driver safety. Site visits to three permanent weigh stations in Kentucky revealed that CMVs regularly bypass weigh stations illegally, including those authorized to use preclearance systems (Drivewyze and PrePass). A survey distributed to law enforcement officials in U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions found that 49% of the responding jurisdictions have seen a recent uptick in illegal bypasses. Most participating jurisdictions (70%) have conducted enforcement details to tamp down illegal bypassing, which indicates it is a widespread problem. Every illegal bypass likely results in jurisdictions missing out on revenues and increases the likelihood of poor safety outcomes. The safety and financial implications of illegal bypasses are substantial enough to warrant swift, comprehensive action to mitigate them.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207