MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006634103 · doi:10.3141/1796-03

Influence of Vertical Alignment on Horizontal Curve Perception: Phase II: Modeling Perceived Radius

2002· article· en· W2006634103 on OpenAlexafffund
Yasser Hassan, Tarek Sayed, Shaun Bidulka

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRADIUSCrestCurvatureRadius of curvatureMathematicsPhase (matter)GeometryHorizontal and verticalStatisticsOpticsGeodesyPhysicsGeologyComputer scienceMean curvature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phase I of a study established that perception of horizontal curvature depends on the overlapping vertical alignment. A horizontal curve radius will be perceived incorrectly if the curve overlaps with a crest or sag vertical curve. Phase II quantified the extent of such erroneous perception. An experiment involving a three-dimensional static presentation was carried out to determine the mean value of perceived horizontal curve radius for different sets of alignment parameters. The results of the experiment were analyzed statistically to examine the effects of the alignment parameters on the perceived radius. The parameters that were found to significantly affect the perceived radius were the type of overlapping vertical curve, actual radius, and turning direction (on crest and sag curves) and sight distance (on sag curves). In addition, simple statistical models were developed using regression analysis to estimate the perceived radius of any horizontal curve in a combined alignment.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207