Development, Evaluation, and Selection of Advanced Transit Signal Priority Concept Directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a process to define the framework for an advanced Transit Signal Priority (TSP) algorithm. For this study, traffic and transit agencies from a broad range of municipalities in Ontario, Canada, provided their views and expertise on various TSP-related issues, including practical needs, design implementation, performance measures, and challenges in developing effective TSP control systems. Based on their inputs as well as the objectives of the project, a set of TSP control concept directions was developed that are characterized with different methodologies and technologies. A listing of selection criteria was also established to evaluate the proposed TSP concept directions. Using these criteria, a ranking and evaluation process was undertaken to select one final TSP control concept that is of interest to potential users of advanced TSP systems. The work described in this article provides a successful example of a process to build consensus among stakeholders for advancing TSP developments.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it