Incorporating work zone configuration factors into speed‐flow and capacity models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study aims to develop work zone speed‐flow and capacity models, which incorporate work zone configuration factors including the number of work zones, geometrical alignment, work zone speed limit, and work zone length. On the basis of the traffic data from six work zone sites with various work zone configurations, two nonlinear traffic speed and flow models including work zone configuration factors are developed for the uncongested and congested traffic conditions, respectively. A work zone capacity model is proposed on the basis of the two models. The three models can further be used to examine the effects of work zone configuration factors on the speed‐flow relationship and capacity at work zones. Results show that traffic speed, traffic flow, and work zone capacity increase with the posted speed limit. Traffic speed under uncongested conditions decreases with the geometric alignment, the number of work zones, work zone length, and heavy vehicle percentage. Under congested conditions, the increase of the number of work zones is found to exhibit a larger negative impact on the traffic flow than the increase of geometric alignment. The number of work zones is also found to have the largest negative impacts on work zone capacity, followed by the geometric alignment. Short work zone length exhibits a relatively minor contribution to increasing work zone capacity. Copyright © 2014 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".