SINGLE-POINT INTERCHANGES: A SAFETY AUDITOR'S PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper on single-point interchanges (SPI) is from a set of conference proceedings on Intersection Safety: Achieving Solutions Through Partnerships. The SPI design is typically implemented where limited land is available for the interchange. The resulting compact design can result in a challenging interchange, particularly for unfamiliar drivers or under adverse conditions (such as rain or dark). The authors have conducted detailed-design and in-service road safety audits of single-point interchanges (SPIs) which identified several design elements common to SPIs that could be challenging to road users (particularly unfamiliar users). These elements include geometric and sight distance constraints, large intersection area with unconventional turning paths, safe accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists, impacts of nearby intersections in urbanized areas, and signal display and signing. The authors report on detailed audit reviews of SPI designs in western Canada, and observations of a functioning SPI in Maryland. They discuss mitigation measures to address design elements that entail a significant collision risk.
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 | 0.050 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".