MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000305943 · doi:10.1002/atr.5670420103

Evaluation of driver satisfaction of travel information on variable message signs using fuzzy aggregation

2008· article· en· W2000305943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dong-Min Lee, Chungwon Lee, Martin T. Pietrucha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransportation Planning and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)Fuzzy logicFidelityComputer scienceService qualityPerceptionData miningTransport engineeringOperations researchService (business)SimulationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringPsychologyMarketingBusinessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Driver satisfaction regarding travel information provided by variable message signs (VMS), which are part of the Nam‐Mountain Tunnel ATIS, was evaluated using fuzzy aggregation. Application of fuzzy aggregation to analyze driver satisfaction allows one to represent the variability and complexity of human perception with great fidelity. A fuzzy weighted average using two sets of fuzzy membership functions was applied to evaluate individual satisfactions of delay and travel time information provided. Then, those individual satisfactions were aggregated to estimate the driver group's overall satisfaction. The evaluated overall satisfaction was 0.65 for delay information and 0.63 for travel time information. Through these results, it was found that users of the travel information provided by the VMS in the Nam‐Mountain Tunnel ATIS were somewhat satisfied with the service quality. Those overall satisfactions were compared with a conventional weighted average and traffic operational effects to demonstrate the usefulness of the developed fuzzy method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicTransportation Planning and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207