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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".