Harrows Shipping Design Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elmer’s Manufacturing currently has two shipping methods to transport the Super 7 harrow to its dealer network in Western Canada and North Dakota. The first method tows the harrow behind a truck and the second loads the harrow onto a flat deck trailer. Elmer’s increasing sales require the shipping of an increasing amount of harrows, leading to large shipping expenses. To lower the shipping expenses a method was developed that packages two 90’ Super 7 Harrows onto a single truckload. Before developing concepts the client’s major needs were identified, with the most important being cost and safety. In addition to the client needs the constraints were identified prior to the concept development phase. The major constraints identified were the size dimensions of the trailer and load as specified by the transportation regulation bodies in the individual regions. Size dimension constraints were determined to be 3.8 m for width, 4.7 m for height, 27.5 m for length, and 4 m for overhang. The final concept utilizes a B-Train trailer and packages the harrow wings on the rear trailer and the hitches on the forward trailer. The wings are secured by six metal brackets designed from stock steel material. The hitches are supported by wood stack brackets and the assemblies are secured to the trailer using tie-downs. The brackets have factors of safety well above the requirement and it was decided not to optimize the design because the reduction in cost was not equal to the decrease in safety of the design. The added load capacity of the brackets may be important during the dynamic loading seen during loading and transportation. In addition to the supporting brackets two pallets and two part boxes were included for all parts omitted from the initial assembly. A cost analysis of all three methods determined that the cheapest method for destinations outside of Manitoba was the proposed method, with the exact savings dependant on the destination. It was assumed the brackets would be reused and therefore analysis was performed assuming five reuses of each bracket. For example, approximate cost savings for shipping to Lloydminster is $1044.39...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".