MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561795418

Best Practice Guidelines for the Design and Application of Transverse Rumble Strips

2005· article· en· W1561795418 on OpenAlex
Geni Bahar, Tara Erwin, M MacKay, Alison Smiley, S Tighe

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumbleSTRIPSEngineeringTransport engineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceSimulationArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drivers are informed of changes in their driving environment through numerous visual warnings by way of traffic signs, signals, and vehicles ahead of them. Transverse Rumble Strips (TRS) are unique as they communicate to drivers' kinesthetic (movement) and auditory senses. The TRS design parameters and elements described in this guide incorporate the findings of extensive reviews of research and practices and are based on the operating speed of the roadway and decision sight distances as interpreted from the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. (A)

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSafety Warnings and SignageFrench-language works237,207