MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537349469 · doi:10.1002/atr.1251

Accuracy of distance‐based travel time decomposition in probe vehicle systems

2013· article· en· W1537349469 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thorsten Neumann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)RangingDecompositionTravel timeComputer scienceTask (project management)AlgorithmTransport engineeringEngineeringGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Probe vehicle data (PVD) are commonly used for area‐wide measurements of travel time in road networks. In this context, travel times usually refer to fixed edges of an underlying (digital) map. That means measured travel times have to be transformed into so‐called link travel times first. This paper analyzes a common method being applied for solving this task (distance‐based travel time decomposition). It is shown that, in general, its inherent imprecision must not be neglected. Instead, it might cause a serious misinterpretation of data if potential errors in the context of travel time decomposition are ignored. For this purpose, systematic as well as maximum deviations between “decomposed” and “true” link travel times are mathematically analyzed. By that, divergent statements in the literature about the accuracy of PVD are harmonized. Moreover, conditions for the applicability of the so‐called distance‐proportion method are derived depending on the permitted error level. Three examples ranging from pure theory to real world confirm the analytical findings and underline the problems resulting from distance‐based travel time decomposition at local level, for example, at individual intersections. 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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207