MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921581994 · doi:10.1002/atr.1244

Traffic performance of shared lanes at signalized intersections based on cellular automata modeling

2013· article· en· W1921581994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chen Chai, Yiik Diew Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCellular automatonComputer scienceTraffic volumeTraffic simulationFlexibility (engineering)Traffic conflictTransport engineeringSimulationIntersection (aeronautics)EngineeringFloating car dataAlgorithmTraffic congestionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Shared lanes at signalized intersections are designed for use by vehicles of different movement directions. Shared lane usage increases the flexibility of assigning lane grouping to accommodate variable traffic volume by direction. However, a shared lane is not always beneficial as it can at time result in blockage that leads to both capacity and safety constraints. This paper establishes a cellular automata model to simulate traffic movements at signalized intersections with shared lanes. Several simulation experiments are carried out both for a single shared lane and for an approach with a shared lane. Simulation of a single shared lane used by straight‐through and right‐turn (as similar to left‐turn in the USA) vehicles suggests that the largest travel delay occurs when traffic volumes (vehicles/lane) of the two movement streams along the shared lane are at about the same level. For a trial lane‐group with a shared lane, when traffic volumes of the two movement streams are quite different, the shared lane usage is not efficient in terms of reduction in traffic delay. The simulation results are able to produce the threshold traffic volume to arrange a shared lane along an approach. 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207