MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W748753638

How Fluid is your Yard

2005· article· en· W748753638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Greg Gormick

Bibliographic record

VenueRailway age · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYardBridge (graph theory)ArchitectureTransport engineeringEngineeringClass (philosophy)TelecommunicationsCivil engineeringComputer scienceArchaeologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As railroad system capacity, fluidity, and velocity are becoming better understood, class yards are becoming to be seen as even more vital components of the whole process of precision railroading than many professionals have believed. Achieving maximum yard throughput that can also increase capacity is a delicate balancing act, a blend of operations strategy and technology. This article looks at questions and answers that are evolving about what hump and flat class yards do, and what processes, information technologies, and hardware are necessary to make loose car railroading as efficient and reliable as intermodal. Some of the approaches crafted to the companies' unique needs include: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe's program Operation Pentagon that has brought about the greatest change in the nature of class yard operation; Canadian Pacific's Yard Operations performance team, with the key objective of bridge building between yard and road operations to reduce terminal dwell time; and Norfolk Southern's Buckeye Yard that had its 30 year old equipment replaced by Trainyard Tech's HC41 hump control system that is based on creating an open systems environment with off the shelf, Windows based architecture.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRailway ageSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207