MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989533890 · doi:10.3141/1710-18

New Insights into Freeway Capacity at Work Zones: Empirical Case Study

2000· article· en· W1989533890 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ahmed Al‐Kaisy, Miao Zhou, Fred L. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFederal Highway AdministrationMcMaster University
KeywordsHighway Capacity ManualDowntownWork (physics)Transport engineeringWork zoneIdentification (biology)Environmental scienceGeographyEngineeringEcologyLevel of service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A construction project in Ontario, Canada, provided the opportunity to use field data to investigate freeway capacity at long-term lane closures due to rehabilitation work. Data from two lane closures at the same construction site (eastbound and westbound) were examined. The site is located on the Gardiner Expressway in the southern part of downtown Toronto. Data were collected during 4 days, totaling around 53 h of congested traffic operations. Results showed significant variation in freeway capacity in the work zones. Despite this variation, average capacity values are reasonably close to the corresponding values provided in the Highway Capacity Manual. Four intervening variables were investigated; all exhibited significant but different effects on freeway work-zone capacity. These variables included temporal variation (which is thought to relate to driver characteristics), grade, day of week, and weather conditions. The results confirmed the pressing need for more extensive field data that will allow better identification of the effect of various control variables on work-zone capacity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207