Analysis of factors that influence the sensor location problem for freeway corridors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The use of traffic sensors to acquire real‐time traffic information for intelligent transportation systems is becoming increasingly common. It is a challenge to determine where these sensors should be located to maximize the benefit of their use. This paper aims to illuminate the interaction of the sensor location problem (SLP) and its influencing factors, and to reveal the influencing mechanisms between those factors and the optimal sensor numbers. Firstly, we sum up the factors that influence the SLP for freeway corridors in detail and present the mathematical formulation of each factor. Then, given the parameters, which are derived from those influencing factors, the maximum integration value model (MIVM) and simplified MIVM are proposed for addressing the SLP. Finally, a real world case study, in which the simplified MIVM is used, is presented to illustrate how these factors influence the optimal sensor numbers and the maximum integration value, and also leads to the typical influencing patterns of those factors for freeway corridors. The results of the case study also demonstrate the effectiveness of the model and problem solving scheme. What is more, the suggestions for using the findings hereof in practical applications are put forward. Copyright © 2013 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".