MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132387222

Total friction management on Canadian Pacific

2009· article· en· W7132387222 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
M D Roney, Donald T. Eadie, Kevin Oldknow, Rob Caldwell, Peter S. Sroba, Marco Santoro

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonnageUpgradeTrack (disk drive)Unit (ring theory)Control (management)CrusherState (computer science)Government (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) has been a leader in implementation of new friction control technology. Following earlier trials, we report the design, justification, roll out and early results of Total Friction Management (TFM) (CF plus TOR) over all high tonnage lines in Western Canada. Tools and processes needed for implementing TFM over a large territory are described. The roll out incorporates state of the art equipment and materials for CF and TOR application, logistics considerations for material handling, and maintenance issues through dedicated TFM staff. Development of a holistic economic case for this TFM project is discussed. Prior results were used to quantify expected savings in rail, ties, and track regauging. Wheel replacement savings were estimated. Locomotive fuel savings were projected by model. Together with the appropriate costs, the expected savings were used to develop an overall business case. TFM implementation involves installation of 325 TOR wayside applicators over 923 route miles between Calgary to Vancouver, as well as optimization and upgrade of 216 wayside CF units. Remote Performance Monitoring is used to manage unit maintenance. Performance verification includes use of L/V sites for TOR effectiveness, and regular high speed tribometer runs to validate and optimize CF performance. Monitoring of the project to date indicate fuel savings (>5% ) well in excess of those used to justify the project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207