Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harry; Per our telcon here is a letter box view of railroad products. Railroad lubricants have evolved quite drastically in the past 15 years......... in the earily 1990s all products were SAE 40 medium viscosity index (75VI) and all contained around 2000ppm of chlorine from a chlorinated paraffin...... this was added specifically to impart some extra EP for the EMD silver insert bearing......... then in the mid 1990s the chlorinated hydrocarbons were declared carcinogenic and the used oil reclaimers started testing for chlorine in the waste oil they were picking up and if it contained more than 1000 ppm chlorine they would not pick up........ even though the chlorniated paraffin is not considered a carcinogen there was no way to prove the source of the chlorine in the waste oil.......... as a result the additives companies responded by reformulating their products chlorine free (usually less than 100ppm some residual cl from other additive processes).......... no easy task taking out the cl........... in order to get emd approval for a product you have to pass the 2 holer silver bering engine test as well as field test in 6 locomotives for one year....... today all the major additive compaines have a cl free additive Ethyl (Amoco), Shell, Mobil, Lyondel....... only Lubrizol doesn't but they haven't been in the RR market in the US but are now actively working on one........... todays RR lubricants are multigrade 20W-40 high viscosity index (100 130VI) chlorine free known as generation 5 lubricants......... with the exception of one RR in Canada all North American RRs are running generation 5 multigrade. The previous product that was used at Surry, Amoco Super 13 would have been formulated as an SAE 40 using Amoco 6555D...... this is an older generation product probably a gen 3........ in addition this product would have about
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.590 | 0.532 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".