Modelling heavy vehicle car‐following behaviour in congested traffic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This study develops a car‐following model in which heavy vehicle behaviour is predicted separately from passenger car. Heavy vehicles have different characteristics and manoeuvrability compared with passenger cars. These differences could create problems in freeway operations and safety under congested traffic conditions (level of service E and F) particularly when there is high proportion of heavy vehicles. With increasing numbers of heavy vehicles in the traffic stream, model estimates of the traffic flow could be degrades because existing car‐following models do not differentiate between these vehicles and passenger cars. This study highlighted some of the differences in car‐following behaviour of heavy vehicle and passenger drivers and developed a model considering heavy vehicles. In this model, the local linear model tree approach was used to incorporate human perceptual imperfections into a car‐following model. Three different real world data sets from a stretch of freeway in USA were used in this study. Two of them were used for the training and testing of the model, and one of them was used for evaluation purpose. The performance of the model was compared with a number of existing car‐following models. The results showed that the model, which considers the heavy vehicle type, could predict car‐following behaviour of drivers better than the existing models. 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".