Field Evaluation of Audible Traffic Signals for Blind Pedestrians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The project aims to single out an audible traffic signal or a pair of audible traffic signals that would enable blind pedestrians to cross intersections safely. This is carried out in three phases: 1) measuring walking alignment and crossing time of blind pedestrian subjects within a simulated corridor, with four different simultaneous traffic signals (cuckoo, peep-peep, 4-note melody and neo-cuckoo) presented in a quiet environment, 2) measuring alignment with audible traffic signals alternating on each end of the simulated corridor, in a quiet environment and 3) measuring alignment at a busy real intersection. This paper reports on the results of the first two phases. The 4-note melody originally proposed by Hall et al. (1996) and modified in a recent study (Laroche et al., 1999) gave better results in terms of localization and perception of safety than any other signals specified in the Canadian standard (Transportation Association of Canada, 1992). Audible traffic signals alternating back and forth on each side of the corridor gave better results than signals presented simultaneously from both sides.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".