MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1005022482 · doi:10.1080/0305215x.2015.1097099

Speed limit and ramp meter control for traffic flow networks

2015· article· en· W1005022482 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Optimization · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la TechnologieDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Speed limitMetreTraffic flow (computer networking)Flow (mathematics)Control (management)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringTransport engineeringMathematicsPhysicsComputer networkArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The control of traffic flow can be related to different applications. In this work, a method to manage variable speed limits combined with coordinated ramp metering within the framework of the Lighthill–Whitham–Richards (LWR) network model is introduced. Following a ‘first-discretize-then-optimize’ approach, the first order optimality system is derived and the switch of speeds at certain fixed points in time is explained, together with the boundary control for the ramp metering. Sequential quadratic programming methods are used to solve the control problem numerically. For application purposes, experimental setups are presented wherein variable speed limits are used as a traffic guidance system to avoid traffic jams on highway interchanges and on-ramps.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.164 · 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