MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1587664780 · doi:10.1002/atr.180

Practical approach for travel time estimation from point traffic detector data

2011· article· en· W1587664780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luou Shen, Mohammed Hadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiecewiseComputer scienceEstimationDetectorReliability (semiconductor)Travel timeInterpolation (computer graphics)Transformation (genetics)AccelerationPoint (geometry)Real-time computingSimulationData miningTransport engineeringEngineeringMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Accurate estimation of travel time is critical to the success of advanced traffic management systems and advanced traveler information systems. Travel time estimation also provides basic data support for travel time reliability research, which is being recognized as an important performance measure of the transportation system. This paper investigates a number of methods to address the three major issues associated with travel time estimation from point traffic detector data: data filling for missing or error data, speed transformation from time‐mean speed to space‐mean speed, and travel time estimation that converts the speeds recorded at detector locations to travel time along the highway segment. The case study results show that the spatial and temporal interpolation of missing data and the transformation to space‐mean speed improve the accuracy of the estimates of travel time. The results also indicate that the piecewise constant‐acceleration‐based method developed in this study and the average speed method produce better results than the other three methods proposed in previous studies. 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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