MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509029601 · doi:10.1002/atr.182

Heavy commercial vehicles‐following behavior and interactions with different vehicle classes

2011· article· en· W1509029601 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Majid Sarvi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckTransport engineeringHeavy trafficHeavy loadTraffic flow (computer networking)Automotive engineeringWork (physics)Heavy equipmentCommercial vehicleEngineeringComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This work investigates the effect of heavy commercial vehicles on the capacity and overall performance of congested freeway sections. Furthermore, the following behaviors of heavy commercial vehicles and its comparison with passenger cars are presented. Freeways are designed to facilitate the flow of traffic including passenger cars and trucks. The impact of these different vehicle types is not uniform, creating problems in freeway operations and safety particularly under heavy demand with a high proportion of heavy vehicles. There have been very few studies concerned with the traffic behavior and characteristics of heavy vehicles in these situations. This study draws on extensive data collected over a long stretch of freeway using videotaping and surveys at several sites. The collected data were firstly used to study the interaction between heavy vehicles and passenger cars. Through a detailed trajectory analysis, the following behaviors of 120 heavy vehicles were then analyzed to provide a thorough understanding of heavy vehicles‐following behavior mechanism. The results showed a significant difference in the following behavior of heavy vehicles compared with other vehicles. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations65
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207