An Evaluation of Winter Operational Runway Friction Measurement Equipment, Procedures, and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document produced by the FAA/Industry Winter Runway Friction Measurement and Reporting Working Group, is designed to provide an overview of current information on the present guidance, practices, and procedures for reporting runway pavement surface conditions during winter operations at airports. It contains recommendations on the desirability of providing the best procedural consistency and standardization and discusses the available means to implement the guidance that will result in improved aviation safety at airports during hazardous winter conditions. Participants of the working group include representatives from the FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Transport Canada, Airports Council International (ACI), American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), Air Transport Association (ATA), Regional Airline Association (RAA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), aircraft manufacturers, and a technical advisor. Research and development credits for this paper go to: Mr. Francis Anderson, Transport Canada; Mr. Rick Marinelli, FAA; Mr. Tom Morrow, technical advisor; Mr. Glenn Morse, ATA; Mr. Wes Te Winkle, FAA; Mr. Jerry Wright ALPA; and Mr. Thomas Yager, NASA. i
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".