MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1931162501 · doi:10.1002/atr.1316

Optimization of coordinated signal settings for hook‐turn intersections

2015· article· en· W1931162501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yiming Bie, Zhiyuan Liu, Linjun Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHookTurn (biochemistry)SIGNAL (programming language)Computer scienceEngineeringChemistryStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Hook turn (HT) is a unique traffic regulation rule for right‐turning vehicles at intersections (in the system where driving is on the left), which was proposed in Melbourne to improve the safety level and operational efficiency of intersections. However, existing coordination plans for HT intersections are fixed and determined empirically, which restricts the further improvements of the efficiency. In this paper, mathematical models are developed for the calculation of the average vehicle delay, with consideration of the spillback phenomenon of HT vehicles in waiting areas. The platoon dispersion model is used to describe the traffic movements between coordinated intersections. With the aim of minimizing average delay of all vehicles, a mixed nonlinear integer model is developed for the optimal coordination plan, which is solved by a genetic algorithm due to the complexity of the model. Finally, a numerical example is built based on three HT intersections in downtown Melbourne, to verify the proposed methodology. Based on a comparison with the current signal plan, the optimal signal plan can significantly reduce the average delay as well as the number of spillbacks, in both the peak hour and off‐peak hour cases. Copyright © 2015 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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